Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/20/2005Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone(631)765-1892 Fax(631)765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, April 20, 2005 6:00 PM RECEIVED ,IU~ 3 0 ~005 old Town Cleri, Present were: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq., Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Heather Tetrault, Environmental Technician WORK SESSION: Board of Trustees 2 April 20, 2005 MS. MOORE: For the record, Pat Moore. This is Dr. Teperman. DR. TEPERMAN: Hello. MR. JOHNSTON: David, could you spell your name for the record? MR. CICHANOWlCZ: Dave Cichanowicz, C-I-C-H-A-N-O-W-I-C-Z. MS. MOORE: We submitted to you a landscape plan. As you know from our last meeting, we had a local gentleman who was supposed to go in and clean up the garbage, went in and actually cut some trees that he wasn't authorized to cut. I gave you at the request -- a good suggestion by Brownell was to give you records of my client's continued relationship with Mr. Cichanowicz, so it was obvious that he is his landscaper. They've been working together for some time. And it seemed kind of out of the ordinary to have Chris Moore come to the property and start doing some major work on the bluff when, in fact, Dave has been the one who has been working on the property. That supports our position that Chris Moore really had no authority to do what he was doing, and now we're here before the Board correcting something that was done illegally; but nonetheless, it's in our client's best interest to make sure the bank is protected. We had no qualms about submitting a plan to you that makes sure that we revegetate or vegetate, supplement the existing vegetation to make sure that it's safe and not jeopardized. We have a lot of investment in that property, both the house as well as the existing structures on the bank. And we're here to talk to the Board informally because we do have a code violation. Chris Moore also has a pending code violation. He's dealing with it his way; we're dealing with it our way, and we've reserved our right to go after Chris later civilly; that's between my client and Chris. Dave gave you a plan, and, Dave, why don't you describe the plan? MR. CICHANOWlCZ: I think you're all familiar with the property and with the disturbance of the bluff. As such, some pretty major native cherries and such were primarily what got cut down right to the stumps, and so it exposed the b~uff pretty well. We're not looking to remove anything. We're looking to add to the existing bluff. We are going to put erosion jute down on the entire bluff where there's any possibility of putting erosion jute down. Then we're going to plant heavily with Cape American beach grass and Rosa Rugosa across the entire bluff. As a portion of the plan, ~ have a 2 Board of Trustees 3 April 20, 2005 recommendation of six to eight inch on center on the beach grass, 24 inch two gallon on the Rosa Rugosa in pockets just so it looks a little more native looking, not just a bluff of beach grass. That's our proposal to put it back and make it actually stronger than it was before. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You mentioned before that quite a few of the larger trees were removed; are you replacing any of those? MR. CICHANOWlCZ: No. It would be literally impossible to put a tree back in, it would never stay. I don't think I could ever stake it and maintain it there. It would actually disturb the bluff more. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It would destabilize it more than it is now. MS. MOORE: Yes, they don't recommend trees because of the wind. MR. CICHANOWICZ: If it was there, fine, leave bt alone, don't touch it. But now that it's gone, I would not suggest putting anything that's going to grow into a large mass and cause possible future erosion. You're better with a Iow growth material. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just questioning because I saw it was quite obvious. DR. TEPERMAN: I want to speak a little bit. I want you to know I'm very upset of the cutting; my wife and I are very upset. I am a surgeon, but a transplant surgeon. I take things out and I put them in. I don't just cut, and I'm dependent on things working. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Replace them. DR. TEPERMAN: I was just out to the site and some of this stuff is coming back. I am very upset, but I will do whatever you say to do. We were already planning to plant some stuff on the bluff, and stuff for the beach house when we talk about, when I indicated someone to do something, I take responsibility. I never told this gentleman to cut anything. He never showed up for me, and then I found out he was cutting. I filed an action against him with the police department. I think this is terrible. But whatever you want me to do, I'll do. I just want to settle it and Dave will plant whatever you think we should plant. I want to be a good member of this community. MS. TETRAULT: You may want to see a little more woody like some junipers, just because the trees that are coming out and the beach grass and the Rosa Rugosa are just Iow growing. Board of Trustees 4 April 20, 2005 DR. TEPERMAN: Those trees are -- I was just out there -- they're screening back, not all of them are gone. I'm not a tree expert, but I think this is working. If you don't like it, we can plant some more. MR. CICHANOWICZ: We can certainly put juniper in, if that's what your criteria is, it will be fine, in pockets of, I think that would be better. You kind of want to layer. From my experience with erosions, you want to try to stop when things are going to start to slide, you need something a little harder in different areas, so you kind of want to do bands across; we could do something like that, and that would be fine too. I'll be happy to amend that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I would think a lot of that cherry, a lot of that clearing would come back. MS. MOORE: They're coming back. DR. TEPERMAN: I'm happy to plant. MR. ClCHANOWICZ: We can do both. MS. MOORE: I asked about a tope, I got the phone call today about a topographic survey, and I asked Dave if he needed a topographic survey for the planting plan -- you can ask him. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Not for the planting plan, what we need is for the -- MS. MOORE: For the other? Well, I asked the surveyor, what you had asked for is one foot contours, and I called the surveyor, and he said this doesn't make any sense. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Two foot contours. I think in the code, it's two foot contours. MS. MOORE: I think the point is we had existing structures, and I gave you a survey on pre work done on the structures and then post, and it's identical. The structures we're in-kind/in-place. So the contours are really completely irrelevant to the structures that were built there because it's what is today, the contours and they haven't changed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There are a couple different issues. MS. MOORE: Tell me what is your purpose for the contours? Just so I know how to explain to him. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh One is the deck at the top in the coastal erosion, that wouldn't be allowed at all. We couldn't allow a deck over that. MS. MOORE: But that was existing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But you also submitted a survey showing the deck above the toe of the bluff. MS. MOORE: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's in the file. MS. MOORE: These are the surveys I submitted. Board of Trustees 5 April 20, 2005 The first survey was dated April 29, 2004. DR. TEPERMAN: These decks have always been there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the location changed. Here's the one showing the deck above the top of the bluff. MS. MOORE: Which one is that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: G. MS. MOORE: But is this done by a surveyor? DR. TEPERMAN: I've never seen that survey. That's never been the survey I got with the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what you submitted. MS. MOORE: Honestly I don't know where that one came from. DR. TEPERMAN: That's not the survey we got with the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We didn't put it in. Salamone residence. MS. MOORE: I'd have to go back and look and see which one is Salamone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This one also shows no decking around the beach house, and it doesn't show a retaining wall. Something like a retaining wall in the back -- the reason we take this seriously, and it might seem like we're trying to pick on you or something -- DR. TEPERMAN: No, I want to make this right. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But we've seen some real nightmares on the Sound when it comes to coastal erosion, and we've seen people lose a substantial amount of property, and then also damage their neighbor's property because of structures that are built in inappropriate areas. DR. TEPERMAN: I want you to know that I bought this house and never saw this survey. MS. MOORE: Right. And Salamone residence is back in '74, '75, and it looks like it was used by -~ I don't even know who. DR. TEPERMAN: This is the survey that the lawyers said I had to have before I bought the house. This is the survey right before I had bought the house in May, and this is the next survey, and it's exactly -- there are little differences, they found -- this house was a mess. No one lived in it for years; that retaining wall, a deck in the back of the house was under two feet of garbage, disgusting, sand and bierakes (phonetic) But it was there, it was in disrepair, but it wasn't something that I made up. MS. MOORE: This looks like it came from a Health Department file from the Building Department from the microfiche. It's not a survey that's as detailed as ours. It's based on a Van Tuyl survey, which is a very old survey. It's identifying sanitary locations, so they wouldn't have Board of Trustees 6 April 20, 2005 identified to any degree of accuracy the existing structures down on the beach. I don't know whether this was accurate or not at the time. This was back '74, '75 by the Health Department. DR. TEPERMAN: I see exactly what you're saying. There's another survey now that shows that there's a retaining wall here and a deck. And you're absolutely right, this stuff was under garbage and junk, but that is a difference. MS. MOORE: I checked with the surveyor today and he said, no, it was there. DR. TEPERMAN: But it was under junk. This deck, they were all there. But I can understand someone not having seen that because when they showed it to me after they got rid of the junk, I said, wow, there was something there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All that has to be resolved but we still have an incomplete application. You still need the contours on the survey to demonstrate and the coastal erosion line has to be put on the -- MS. MOORE: The coastal erosion line, I apologize, I thought it was on the survey already. So it's my fault for the CZM line. I have asked Stanley to put it on. I spoke to him today at 3:30, and it was so late, we didn't want to hold you up in the office. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll be honest with you, believe me, we want to resolve this too. We have an agenda here that's going to go on for another six hours. DR. TEPERMAN: I want you to know this, and I appreciate this, I am here to make things right. Maybe I have gotten some bad advice before, and I did things, and I am sorry. I want to make it right. I was given advice that I didn't need permits to do this. But with that in play, I want to ask you, there are some steps, I have an 85 year old mother, who I was hoping to get out there, those steps can't be up to anybody's code or anything. I can't walk down them with my kids, and they're falling apart, and they go down to the beach. There's no railing there. MS. MOORE: It's a railing to the knee. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there. MS. MOORE: You saw that. I think when I was talking to Ed Forrester, he suggested that we incorporate that into the permit because it does need to be replaced, and rather than having another incident -- DR. TEPERMAN: I'm not doing anything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have to apply for everything. MS. MOORE: We included it in the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But I think what's central to this is the Board of Trustees 7 April 20, 2005 spirit of the Coastal Erosion Law, with all the structure on the bluff, including the deck at the top -- and that's the first thing that jumped out on us when we got there besides the guy with the chain saw -~ but the first thing that jumped out on us was the deck over the bluff, which under Coastal Erosion is really a problem because it destabilizes the bluff, you lose the vegetation on the bluff, and that leads to a lot of problems. MS. MOORE: I understand that. But do you understand that the Coastal Erosion Law only came into effect in '91, I believe. Any structures that were existing prior to that are grandfathered. He took a grandfathered structure and repaired it in-kind/in-place. Those are things that every day you get an application in and you approve. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You have to show us that. MS. MOORE: I can do it by way of-- you want a '91 aerial, I'~1 get you a 91 aerial. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That would be -- MS. MOORE: That I could order. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I thought we looked at aerials for this. MS. MOORE: I don't know. I don't have one. MR. JOHNSTON: These are things, we can do this. MS. MOORE: Well, no, I'd like to have it resolved so I know what you need. DR. TEPERMAN: I am happy to come here. I will come here when you ask me to. I know that there are things on for later, and I have to go back and operate. And there is nothing more important than your job, and I appreciate your protecting the coast. 'This stuff was there; it got repaired, yes, but it was there. Just tell me what you need so I don't have to keep coming back. MR. JOHNSTON: One quick thing for the record, David, could you, in your professional opinion as a landscaper for 20, 30 years whatever it is, what happened there from your perspective by Chris Moore, or whoever, from your prior visit out there? MR. CICHANOWICZ: From the prior visit to the more recent visit -- MR. JOHNSTON: What happened? MR. CICHANOWlCZ: Most of the native cherries that were growing had some fairly good height to them, were chain sawed cut fairly close to the edge of the bluff, and pretty much clean cut all the way across the bluff. I mean, there wasn't any left to survive. MR. JOHNSTON: In your experience, do these cherries revegetate themselves or grow back? 7 Board of Trustees 8 April 20, 2005 MR. CICHANOWICZ: Yes, in most cases, yes. MR. JOHNSTON: The rest was the observation of the Trustees. I just wanted to get it into the record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But also, it's a reasonable request, what has to be done to resolve this whole thing? We need a survey with two foot contours and coastal erosion line and we need proof that the structure, or whatever structure was built prior to '91, right? MS. MOORE: Well, no, '91 is your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We need a survey with a coastal erosion line and two foot contours, and we need proof of what structure was there before the adoption of the Coastal Erosion Code in 1991. MS. MOORE: The adoption of the code was July of'91, I think? MR. JOHNSTON: We'll stipulate whatever the date of the adoption. MR. JOHNSTON: Pat, are you happy with that understanding? MS. MOORE: I have my marching orders. DR. TEPERMAN: May I ask a question? I clearly bought a house with all this stuff; this is what the survey showed. And it got repaired, but it's still there. So I don't know what the survey showed 20, 30, 40 years ago. So if it's there, I'm okay. If it's not there, then what happens? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then you have to apply for all of it and see how it's built, and see how it affects the bluff and the coastal erosion. MR. JOHNSTON: You have a very good attorney. She will explain it to you. DR. TEPERMAN: I just want you to know that when you buy something and then you go through the Town, and I asked the Town before I bought this, I said, please find the CO. They said here's the code number. I said show me the piece of paper. They said well, we wouldn't like to admit as the Town that we have lost the C of O. I said, but there's a number there, how am I going to buy this thing and figure out if it's okay? So there are multiple lawyers, they all agreed it's okay. They said these things are there. So you buy it. MR. JOHNSTON: That's your first problem, multiple lawyers. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Multiple lawyers. All right, thank you very much. DR. TEPERMAN: Thank you very much. If we get those things, can this be resolved the next time? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I hope so. We don't want to see you again, either. Board of Trustees 9 April 20, 2005 DR. TEPERMAN: I want to enjoy my home. Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 11,2005 at 8:00 a.m. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. All AYES. NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. WORK SESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE DICKERSON moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. I. MONTHLY REPORT: For March 2005, check for $7,219.35 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There's a list of SEQRA actions I will read them all. Resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in the public hearings in the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, April 20, 2005 are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations and not subject to review under SEQRA: Christine Rivera -- SCTM#99-1-16 Charles Salice -- SCTM#104-3-1 Craig Rochon -- SCTM#138-2-20.1 Peter & Grace Gorman -- SCTM#14-2-30.6 Frank Purita -- SCTM#97-2-19 Nicholas Cassis -- SCTM#45-6-9.1 C&L Realty -- SCTM#56-5-3.4 Peter Ruttura -- SCTM#78-7-12 Kevin & Margaret Whitrock -- SCTM#123-6-20 Peter Warns -- SCTM#126-5-2.1 Nicholas Aliano -- SCTM#83-1-11&12 LI Sound Oyster, LLC -- SCTM#140-1-23.1 Robert A. Macfarlane -- SCTM#136-2-6,7,8 Vincent & Carol Manago -- SCTM#118-4-10 Jo Ellen & William Ahmuty -- SCTM#53-6-10 Board of Trustees 10 April 20, 2005 Arnold Barton -- SCTM#111-9-13 George Kofinas -- SCTM#110-7-18.1 Matt-A-Mar by the Bay, LLC -~ SCTM#117-8-18 Monica Kreischer -- SCTM#71-2-16 Sim Moy -- SCTM#90-2-1 Michael Zevits -- SCTM#88-6-18.5 Enzo Morabito -- SCTM#83-1-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That is a motion; I need a second. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And resolve that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold with regard to the application of Mat-A-Mar by the Bay, LLC more fully described in the public hearing Item 25 of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, April 20, 2005 is pursuant to the SEQRA Rules and Regulations classified as an Unlisted Action. And be it further resolved that the applicant is required to submit Part I of the Long Environmental Assessment Form; and be it further resolved that upon receipt of the Long Environmental Assessment Form the Clerk of the Trustees is hereby directed to a commence a coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ali in favor? ALL AYES. iV. RESOLUTIONS -- ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: 1. CHRISTINE RIVERA requests an Administrative Permit to erect a split-rail fence between private property and public beach. Located: 250 Sound Beach Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 99-1-16 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We looked at this in the field and I believe we measured out to be 100 feet beyond the vinyl fence. We'll allow 100 feet of split-rail fence to extend beyond the vinyl fence. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, before we start in, the beginning of the meeting aren't really public hearings; however, if anyone has any comment they wish to make on any of these actions, please don't hesitate, but please be ready also, so we can keep moving along. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? If not, I'll make a motion to approve as described. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. Frank Uellendahl, Architect on behalf of EMILIA & ILYA KABAKOV requests an Administrative Permit to 10 Board of Trustees 11 April 20, 2005 construct a first floor addition on the landward side of the existing dwelling and to construct a second floor addition. Located: 1700 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 123-8-5 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I looked at this and there was some planting that needed to be done, so I would like -- all of the building was going to be done within the footprint. MS. TETRAULT: She didn't send in a planting plan that was good for what she was proposing to plant. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If there are no other Board comments, I'll approve it with the condition that the plantings be done; is that all right with you? I'll make a motion to approve the Administrative Permit to construct a first floor addition to the landward side of the existing dwelling and to construct a second floor addition with the condition that the plantings know be done first and be inspected prior to the permit being given. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. V. RESOLUTIONS-MOORING & ANCHORAGE/STAKES/DUCK BLINDS: 1. CYRIL LUKEMAN, JR. requests an onshore/offshore stake in Narrow River, replacing Stake #6 for a boat no larger than 18'. Access: Public. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about this, there was no problem. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 2. WILLIAM SAVINO requests an onshore/offshore stake in Narrow River, replacing Stake #8, for a boat no larger than 18'. Access: Public. TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 3. BRIAN BECKER requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 19 foot boat replacing Mooring #64 with public access. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this one. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 4. ROLAND GRANT requests a Mooring Permit in ll Board of Trustees 12 April 20, 2005 Richmond Creek for a 16 foot boat, replacing Mooring #93. Access: Public. TRUSTEE KING: I thought we had some discussion. MS. TETRAULT: We determined they had a dock. TRUSTEE KING: How is that replacing the mooring? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't know, is the applicant here? MS. STANDISH: There was a mooring there and now there -- TRUSTEE KING: They already have a dock, right? MS. STANDISH: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think we should find out if they're using their dock. Can we table? TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion we table this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. VI. APPLICATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS/EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS: 1. CHARLES SALICE requests an Amendment to Permit 5020 to reconfigure the floating dock from its present alignment to a straight linear configuration extending out from the present catwalk and ramp, perpendicular to the shoreline, and secured by three new piles. Located: 2315 Pine tree Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#104-3-1. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The Board looked at this in the field; we did a lot of measuring, and because of the water depth we couldn't see where the dock could go out much further and not affect the channel there. I think it was the inclination of the Board to deny the request because the applicant does have a nice dock with good water. Any other comment? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, I agree. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there was a problem so much reconfiguring as long as you stayed inside that pier line. He would have to shorten the catwalk. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The problem was that the boat would stick out. The proposal was for it to be turned. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about shortening, pulling it back in so it was the same length to maintain that pier line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is the applicant here? MR. SALICE: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Our concern because the channel is so narrow there, that if you extend it out any further, you'd be right out into the channel. MR. SALICE: It only actually extends out eight more feet and doesn't come near into the channel. The channel's 12 Board of Trustees 13 April 20, 2005 another 10, 15 feet beyond that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have showed very deep water there the day we were there for inspection. MR. SALICE: Because, you see, there's a mooring all the way out to the right of that that's right into the channel which is a good 30 feet out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We took photos actually from the neighbor's dock to show the pier line to show you're right in line with your dock to the dock south of you. MR. SALICE: In line to what, ma'am? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: To the dock just south of you. MR. SALICE: But that has nothing to do with the channel. The channel is way out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It has everything to do with navigation. If you went out another 15 feet -- MR. SALICE: It's only going out eight feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: According to the plans here it shows it going out 14 feet. MR. SALICE: It couldn't go out 14 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then it shows a 30 foot boat on that, which would bring it out even further into the channel. MR. SALICE: The boat's going to come in closer to the channel because it will be coming to the side of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not what the plans show that were submitted and also the Board's concern about the pier line is if you go out further, the neighbors will go out further. MR. SALICE: To the right of me they are way past me. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We took a picture from the neighbor to the north. MR. SALICE: What about to the south? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It includes the dock to the south; that's what we wanted, we wanted the three docks to the south to show the relationship. MR. SALICE: Facing the docks to the right, they're past where I am, and if the dock is 20 feet long and it's coming in four feet and you're originally sticking out cause it's 20 by 6 you're only going out about eight feet, and the channel is a good 30 feet beyond that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't show that on what's submitted here; would you take a look? MR. SALICE: Sure. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: See, what it shows, here's what you have here. If you go out six feet and this is 20, so the difference is 14 right off the bat, then you're showing another ten feet with the boat, so you're another 24 feet 13 Board of Trustees 14 April 20, 2005 out. MR. SALICE: I'm not the greatest with math. If you're already out six feet this way and you're going back in five feet because of the tides, what are you sticking out there now? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It doesn't show that on the plan. It shows the floats starting where the old float is now. It doesn't show the float back. MR. SALICE: It has to go back to go underneath the ramp. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I agree but what you're showing here goes out another 14 feet. MR. SALICE: Other than what -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is this the dock you're talking about to the south? MR. SALICE: Yes, ma'am. This is not even near it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Which dock are you referring to? MR. SALICE: There's one to the immediate right and then there's one right past it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If it was sticking out wouldn't it be shown here? MR. SALICE: There's another one immediately to the right of that; to the left is Eugene Berger; to the right is two more docks, one is right past this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: What I'm saying is if there is another dock here and you're saying it went out further, wouldn't we be seeing that here? MR. SALICE: There's one here (indicating). TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We should see it, it should show up there. MR. SALICE: It's been there nine years. I don't know where you got the picture from. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We took the picture last week, this is off Mr. Berger's dock. MR. SALICE: This is off Eugene's dock? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. SALICE: Then you were looking at my dock and then you see this one further out there, that's half the distance of the creek in front of my house, that's half the distance and it's much narrower there, and it fronts right out here someplace is a mooring. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you want, we could meet you on the site. May 11th around noon either before or after. MR. SALICE: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: Get the edge of the channel marked so he can tell where the edge of the channel is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh He's got soundings. But see on your drawing it shows you going out another 14 feet, that's 14 Board of Trustees 15 April 20, 2005 what you submitted. MR. SALICE: This side, what is this? This is the ramp. I didn't write that. I made a sketch myself because I thought that was all that was needed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Who submitted this? MR. SALICE: This is what I submitted (indicating). TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Then who submitted this? MR. SALICE: I have no idea. It's stapled together with this. Is that your signature? MR. SALICE: That's no where's near mine. MS. TETRAULT: You're talking about Eugene -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Somebody dropped it off yesterday. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'Ll come out on the 11th. MR. SALICE: I didn't submit that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 2. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of JOCKEY CREEK TRUST CIO KATHLEEN DEVORE requests an Amendment to Permit 6093 to remove 45 linear feet on the west end and 18 linear feet on the east end of the existing bulkhead and replace same in-place using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Construct 112 linear feet of new bulkhead immediately in front of the remainder of the existing bulkhead, again using C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Project with will include a 15 non-turf buffer behind the new bulkhead. Located: 635 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM#70-6-30. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this and I believe the Board looked at this, and I didn't see any problem going out in front of the first 45 feet and the 18 foot would be more to the west and the east end, and everything else will be -- excuse me, go out in front on the first 45 and go behind on the last 18 feet and everything else go in front. Any Board members have a comment? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is that clearly marked on the plans? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't think he redrew a plan, he just described it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh As long as we're clear on what we're going to vote on. MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, representing the Devores. If I could show you this plan, it's been revised. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We have a copy in the file. I'm inclined to approve this as described. Any other comments, anybody? if not, I'll make a motion to approve as described in the 15 Board of Trustees 16 April 20, 2005 new plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 3. LINDA S. SANFORD requests the last One-Year Extension to Permit 5593 as issued on July 24, 2002. Located: 780 Private Road #17, Southold. SCTM#81-3-27.1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I have a note on this one. MS. TETRAULT: The only thing was the hay bale line should be written in on the plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve with the condition that the hay bale line be put on the survey plans. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 4. CRAIG ROCHON requests a Transfer of Permit #1534 and Permit #1067 for the existing docking facility. Located: 5700 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, SCTM#138-2-20.1 TRUSTEE KING: I had in my notes he should apply for what's there because it's different than what's on the permits, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is the applicant here? MS. TETRAULT: He called today and said he couldn't be here. What I suggested he do is transfer the permit then come in for an amendment for what he has or you can just approve it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. We'll do that. But he has to come in and amend it before he does any work on it because the permits are kind of - no, we didn't want to transfer the permits for some reason. TRUSTEE KING: There's some denials back in the history of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe we'll just approve a new structure. Why don't we do that, approve a new structure based on what's there, based on a set of plans reflecting what's currently there. TRUSTEE KING: Rather than transfer it, we'll have him apply for what's there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We could just approve what's there and condition it on new plans. Brownell, do you think we should deny the transfer and then approve the dock? Mechanically how should we work that? We don't want to transfer the permits because they go back a few years, but they're not exactly what you call descriptive and clear, we'd rather 16 Board of Trustees 17 April 20, 2005 approve the structure that's currently thero based on plans that show what's there. MR. JOHNSTON: That's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: Just deny the transfers. It gives them what they have. We would approve the new permit. MR. JOHNSTON: I have no problem on that. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion we deny the transfer and approve the facility that's there based on plans accurately depicting what's thero now. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll abstain. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you recusing yourself or abstaining? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Recusing myself. MR. JOHNSTON: Kenny, could you state the reason for the record of your recusal? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I dock my boat there. 5. En-Consultants on behalf of PETER TAGIOS & ALETRA MONFREDO TAGIOS request a Transfer of Permit 5858 from James F. Grathwohl to Peter Tagios & Aletra Monfredo Tagios, as issued on February 25, 2004. Located: 545 Williamsburg Road, Southold. SCTM#78-5-16. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I see Mr. Grathwohl here, are the Tagioses here? No. I just wanted to make it clear in the transfer that a great deal of time and effort that was spent by this Board and the Town on the issuing of this permit. And I just want to make sure that it's absolutely clear to the person that's getting the permit that they understand the permit exactly, and that they understand what this Board put into it and what the Town put into it. MR. GRATHWOHL: They understand completely. James F. Grathwohl. MS. WlCKHAM: I'm Abigail Wickham, I'm representing Mr. Grathwohl in the transfer, and it has been made extremely clear to the applicant's attorney by me that this is for a transfer only. It's not an extension; it's not an amendment. It's a transfer of what's there and I know his attorney has reviewed it very thoroughly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. And with that transfer we could send them a copy of the permit in big red letters. I'll make a motion to approve the transfer. 17 Board of Trustees 18 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the end of the public meeting for the moment. I need a motion to go off the regular meeting. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IN THE MATTER OF THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS UNDER THE WETLANDS ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION FROM THE TRAVELER WATCHMAN. PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE MAY BE READ PRIOR TO ASKING FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS ORGANIZED AND BRIEF. FIVE (5) MINUTES OR LESS IF POSSIBLE TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We have many pages of Wetland Permits tonight. If anyone would like to speak, please come up and use the microphone and identify yourself, and please keep your comments brief and organized. 1. BARRY BALL & KIMBERLY VANZEE request a Wetland Permit to remove debris, poison ivy and invasive nonnative species and plant additional native species and ground cover in the 50 foot wide buffer along the driveway. Repair the bridge to island, renovate existing dock and boathouse; remove debris and poison ivy and invasive species from island at southern end of property and maintain by seeding with grass and mowing; re-gravel driveway south of house as needed; renovate the existing dock on the pond on the east side of the house, and trim the phragmites along the western edge of the pond. Located: 525 Cedar Birch Lane, Orient. SCTM#15-8-26.8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. JOHNSTON: Is the applicant here? MS. VANZEE: Kimberly Vanzee and Barry Ball. MS. TETRAULT: Do you have a copy of what you faxed over today? MR. BALL: Yes. MS. TETRAULT: Would you bring that up, please? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only thing we're missing here is the location of the planting on the plan. MS. VANZEE: Within the 50 foot buffer. What Heather and I 18 Board of Trustees 19 April 20, 2005 talked about is in the fall thero were lots of sprouts coming up, but wherever that isn't happening, we were going to do additional ground cover. With regard to the DEC, what they wanted was trees with 15 foot centers, meaning trees 30 feet apart or shrubs 12 feet apart and then ground cover wherever there isn't ground cover coming up in that 50 foot buffer. MS. TETRAULT: You haven't finalized that with them? MS. VANZEE: That's finalized, they aren't mentioning ground cover, they're just saying the trees and shrubs at that distance. So 12 feet apart shrubs or 30 foot apart trees. MS. TETRAULT: Did they give you an actual number?. MS. VANZEE: No, just that density throughout. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think I'm inclined to approve this, but I think what you're going to have to add to the survey is that replanting area, it's really not on. Do you know what I mean? MR. BALL: Can we show you on the -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You can show us, but you're going to have to add it to it. You can come in the office and do it yourself, but it should be shown on here and then accompanied by your plant list. MR. BALL: When the DEC comes out, they were going to call us tomorrow and he'll give us numbers and we can add the actual numbers to comply with their density requirements. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'd rather approve it tonight conditioned with you coming in and drawing it on there. Is the Board all right with that? Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition that the replanting area be shown on the survey. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, is trimming the phragmites, do you want any photos or anything, is that an annual trimming? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm sorry, thank you. The trimming of the phragmites just mark the area where that's going to take place. MS. VANZEE: In discussing with the DEC, that was what was always done to that property there. It's always been trimmed. The DEC wants us to come back, if you have a survey there, around the edge of the dock and not -- well, trim it to just two feet off the ground. So actually, it's 19 Board of Trustees 20 April 20, 2005 going to be somewhat less than how our application is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just show that, but show that area and circle it, and then show it on the survey. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you want any follow-up pictures six months from now or a year from now; are you giving them permission to trim the phragmite forever? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, as needed. And any CAC comment? MR. JOHNSTON: Regarding the Ball application, does CAC have any comment on that? MR. MCGREEVY: There was no comment made about how often it should be trimmed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's the Board's intent that it would be trimmed as needed. MR. MCGREEVY: I think it should be put in that the intent be there to trim as needed. MR. JOHNSTON: To two feet? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We generally say one foot but the DEC's going to two? MR. BALL: They even want us to plant trees to suppress the phragmite, so we're going to do that too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because mowing is the best way to suppress growing. MR. BALL: They want to go to two feet and plant trees to provide shade. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you keep them trimmed. But two feet is going to be -- that's an odd, I never heard of that one. 2. PETER & GRACE GORMAN request a Wetland Permit to construct stairs to the beach. Located: 440 Windward Road, Orient. SCTM#14-2-30.6. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application? MS. GORMAN: Grace and Peter Gorman. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. Would anybody want to comment? I looked at this on behalf of the Board. I see in your description you'd like three landings, if you look to the east of you there's a set of stairs, I recommend basically copying what they have, a platform on top no greater than 4' by 8' and a landing at the bottom no greater than 4' by 8' once again. MR. GORMAN: The landing at the bottom is really just to get over to the beach and leave the beach grasses, some room under it. And we have six grandchildren and it's a long -- it's a 20 foot drop; so I'd like just to sort of make sure that they don't go tumbling down. 2O Board of Trustees 2 l April 20, 2005 MS. GORMAN: We thought the landing would prevent disaster. MS. TETRAULT: What is the size of the proposed platforms? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Larger than we usually give. At the midsection they propose a 5' by 9'6" landing. It's our normal protocol to go with a 4' by 8' foot platform, if any, as far as a landing. You have 5' by 9' and-a-half it's one foot shorter. MR. GORMAN: It's a four foot stringer going down with a post then a four foot stringer on the other side. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. MR. GORMAN: That's what we're looking for. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommends that the size of the landings must comply with the Town's Wetland Code, a half inch spacing between the deck on landing, so the rain can drip through instead of gush off and erode your bluff; then they recommend a 50 foot non-turf buffer beyond the bluff. Would you like to explain? MR. MCGREEVY: At the top of the bluff, landward be a 50 foot width that would act as a buffer; in other words, there would be no planting within that 50 foot. MR. GORMAN: There's grass there right now. MR. MCGREEVY: We're trying to prevent any fertilizing of any planting or grass. What we create is a 50 foot buffer going landward from the bluff. MS. GORMAN: So there's no grass there? MR. MCGREEVY: There shouldn't be any grass there. MS. GORMAN: What's going to be there? MR. MCGREEVY: In other words, there shouldn't be any fertilization of any kind of plantings. What we're trying to do -- TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If I may comment? What the CAC does is recommend environmental ideas. MS. GORMAN: We're not going to fertilize way out there anyway. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let him finish. MS. GORMAN: I'm sorry. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We're the Board that actually supplies the permit, and I don't think the Board is going to push for a 50 foot buffer in this case. We usually use that for behind bulkheads. MR. GORMAN: We're not interested in the bluff eroding. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would the Board consider any type of bluff nutrient? MS. TETRAULT: Is it grass right up to the edge? MR. MCGREEVY: Tuff up to the edge. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's about the least stable planting you 21 Board of Trustees 22 April 20, 2005 could make on the bluff. MS. GORMAN: It's not on the bluff. MR. GORMAN: The bluff is all vegetation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's what keeps it stable. MR. GORMAN: There isn't a sign of instability that's why we started our stairs so far back from the bluff because we didn't want to even begin to destablize that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You saw it Ken, make a recommendation. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't feel we need a non-turf buffer although we don't approve of turf being right over the edge of the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If you just back the mower up a new feet, let it naturalize. MR. GORMAN: We want that bluff to remain as stable as anybody else. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve a set of stairs with three 4' by 8' platforms, and a non-mowing 10 foot strip up on top of your bluff. Located: 440 Windward Road in Orient. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 3. SCHEMBRI HOMES, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, with on-site sewage disposal system, and pervious driveway. Located: 1025 Seawood Drive, Southold. SCTM#79-7-63 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application? We have been there numerous times, we had some problems with it, I think they have all been rectified. It's a smaller house. The wetlands area's been replanted very nicely. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: He did one of the nicest replantings I've ever seen. TRUSTEE KING: He did a nice job. Any other comments from the Board on this? If there's no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that dry wells be shown on the survey for roof runoff on the house. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. 22 Board of Trustees 23 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. ALL AYES. 4. FRANK PURITA requests a Wetland Permit for clearing within 100 feet of the wetlands. Located: 875 Eugene's Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#97-2-19 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone who would like to speak on this application? MR. LOHR: Good evening, Members of the Board, my name is Donald Lohr, L-O-H-R, I'm an attorney, I'm here on behalf of Frank Purita. My address is 50 Chades Lindburgh Boulevard, Suite 400, Uniondale, New York. Mr. Purita acquired this property in mid-February and spent some time fixing the place, painting, refinishing floors, planting privet, putting in a pea stone driveway and so forth. Part of what he did also, Mr. Purita operates a farm and vineyard in Southold, and he's sensitive to environmental issues. One of his farmhands was down there in connection with improving the property cleaning up the yard. They removed old tires, barbecues, lawn mowers that were behind his property, in addition, cleaning up debris and leaves. In connection with doing that some of the thistle bushes have been cut back, I don't need to characterize what's happened, I know you've been down there and are familiar with it. What he wants to do is just comply with what's necessary, what the Board requires. He's filed the permit, he's paid the permit fee, and we're here really -- I think I spoke to I believe it was Heather earlier today to find out what you had in mind in terms of revegetation, if any. MR. JOHNSTON: For the record, sir, what was your name? MR. LOHR: Donald Lohr. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you authorized to speak on behalf of the applicant? MR. LOHR: Yes, he's here. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you authorize him to speak on your behalf? Is there something in the record, the file that shows that he can? MR. PURITA: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to take oral comment first, then we'll discuss anything else. MS. WATSON: My name is Pam Watson. I live on Private Road #7 in Cutchogue. I own the five acres that Mr. Purita is here to apply for a permit for. As his attorney said, a while back he bought this land, this whatever house from a woman that died many months ago, and from what I understand, he buys homes, and he came here and bought his new home and 23 Board of Trustees 24 April 20, 2005 started clearing the backyard, disregarded property lines and my five acres is part of his backyard. I have my survey here of the land that I own and that he is my new neighbor, and he just started clearing my backyard, which is my wetlands, a great deal of it. I also have pictures of what he did. He disregarded property lines and just moved into my land, and I didn't know about this because it's such an enormous property, and I'll come up and show it to you, that I can't see what the back neighbors are doing because it's old growth forest and thorn bushes and vines, and it wasn't until the neighbor got in touch with a neighbor and got in touch with a neighbor that got in touch with me and said this has been going on for three weeks. I know you work in the city, you come home at 9:00 at night, you don't know what's going on, but this guy bought this house and he's clearing his backyard, which is okay, but he went into your wetlands. He cleared a great deal of it and that's how I contacted Mr. Purita, Frank, and I met with the man, and I told to cease, stop doing what he's doing, he chopped trees down, I didn't want my property disturbed. So I'm here to deny his permit. I have pictures of the damage he did to my property, and I also have my survey of the land that l own. His backyard is also my backyard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can we see your survey? MS. WATSON: The Gambergs and then you have Buta and Watson, which is me. This is the property, this is the properly this fellow bought, this is all my five acres, my home is here, this is all the wetlands. A little pond here, right. And so this is what he cleared (indicating). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like to see? MR. LOHR: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: For the record, we're waiting for a survey for Mr. Purita. When we go out on a site you assume where the property lines are, but that's not the best way to operate. So you really need a survey to show where the action was taken, not that we don't believe you. MS. WATSON: I have pictures. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there a couple of times. MS. WATSON: I have pictures of what he did. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We were there. MS. WATSON: As soon as I met the man I said I don't want any problems with the DEC, so the first thing I did was I went down to the Southold Police Department, and I filed a report with the Southold Police Department, and they came over and interviewed Mr. Purita. And they interviewed him, they surveyed him, whatever they did, they came back and 24 Board of Trustees 25 April 20, 2005 talked to me, they filed a police report, I have it, and, of course, I have your notice here. Here's all the pictures he's trespassed, invaded private property, cleared my wetlands, disturbed the natural balance, my bunnies that are out there, the birds, the frogs, the turtles, the deer. The whole habitat. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One of the things we saw, this is all your property, the dumping, the brush, the leaves? MS. WATSON: Let me explain something about this property. It is so enormous, here's my house and here's Frank here, this is unaccessible to me. I have to go to through murky waters. I never knew who my neighbors were here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am familiar with this. MS. WATSON: You were probably one of those that trailed through it. I never knew what my backyard looked like here. I never disturbed. I never bothered it. I bought the land in 1992, and I never bothered the land. It wasn't until my neighbors called me that I was able to get around to go meet Frank and see what he did. So what I have done these past few weeks, I just made a little path down through here, like a one person path, and I went threugh murky waters or brackish waters, whatever you call them because it's unaccessible to me, and I finally got through there just last week. I never went back there. It was totally unaccessible to me. In order for me to try to meet my neighbors through my backyard without going through their front door, I had to have big lopers and machinery to go through there. MR. LOHR: If I may make one comment on her comment, it's a five acre tract; what we're talking about in terms of what Mr. Purita did in cleaning that area, he didn't disturb five acres. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're familiar with -- we were on the site. MR. LOHR: Several feet apparently over his property line. MS. WATSON: It was beyond several feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why we need a survey. MS. WATSON: He cleared several feet but then he chopped down trees beyond that several feet of clearing because that's when he ceased work, I called him from New York City. MR. LOHR: He didn't do much more than the clearing you apparently did to make the path back there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you visit the site? MR. LOHR: I visited the site. MS. WATSON: They can come and see the path I cleared. I 25 Board of Trustees 26 April 20, 2005 did no damage to the environment compared to what was done. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Are there any properly indicators? MS. WATSON: This is what I don't understand when he bought this property from the woman that died and her family. I said to him there were property markers there, you disregarded property markers. Eventually he put them back. When I met him, he staked that property again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That orange ribbon? MS. WATSON: That's me, I went in there. MR. PURITA: I helped you put that up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's your property. MS. WATSON: When I met Frank because he had removed the preper[y stakes that were there. MR. PURITA: There were no property stakes. MR. LOHR: Usually when there's a survey there's a monument, either cement or steel in the ground. I went there and I couldn't find any. That's why he's doing what he's doing. MS. WATSON: He assumed nobody owned this land, is what he told me verbatim, and I was just clearing it to look pretty. I said you were misled. You bought somebody else's home. Your first place of business should be to find out where my property begins and ends. That's your first obligation as a property owner, find out where the property line is, TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One of our concerns is the clearing, we'd like to see everything -- we'd like to see the cleared area replanted. We need owner's permission to do the replanting and the same clearing that was done on this side of the lot also, and we need that owner's permission to do replanting. Another concern of the Board was all the debris that was piled in the back, the leaves and the brush after the clearing. MS. WATSON: That's not me. MR. LOHR: That's not him either. Everything he did clean out was dumped at the Town dump and we have receipts. MS. WATSON: I have to agree with Frank. When I met Frank I said I want you to put every leaf back, every branch, every tree you took out. He said I can't, I took it to the dump. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you see the piles of leaves in the back? MS. WATSON: I know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's piles of brush that this Board saw that were fresh cut in the back. MS. WATSON: Some of them are fresh cut, I noticed that too. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And there's piles of brush on what I would 26 Board of Trustees 27 April 20, 2005 consider to be the east side that are fresh cut and dumped in the woods. MS. WATSON: Yes. But I'm only telling you what the man said to me because when I said to him I want you to put everything back three weeks ago when I called him from New York City, that's where I work, he said I already took everything to the dump. When I took pictures and went to look at the land the other day, when I finally made my path in the back, a lot of that stuff was fresh cut and you could still see it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely. MS. WATSON: I know you can. I was there Saturday. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern was we want the material that was dumped in the back cleaned out, and we want it replanted to the Board's satisfaction and your satisfaction. MR. LOHR: If I could be heard on that. What he was trying to do was fix the house up, that's why he did the planting of the privets and the pea stone driveway and the painting and refinishing the floors. The stuff that they cleaned out of there they did bring to the dump and they have the receipts. He only took title to this in mid February. There's three receipts for three different dates where they dumped at the dump, I think over a thousand pounds of stuff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says rubbish, it doesn't say brush or leaves. MS. WATSON: I will tell you what Frank said. He said to me you have an old barbecue back here, some tires. I took them to the dump. I said I've never seen this land. This is the first time since 1992 that I'm here. I never stepped foot there. That was it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Those records are for rubbish not for leaves or brush. MR. LOHR: Why would he dump some stuff and remove other stuff? TRUSTEE KING: Because some is rubbish and some is leaves and twigs and that's why they're specified at the dump. MR. LOHR: If he's trying to improve the appearance of the house, why would he dump anything there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was our question. We can't answer that. MR. LOHR: He didn't. MS. WATSON: Some of the stuff Frank said he removed was from the other property, which I don't own. My land ends here. He said he found the barbecue and tires here. I don't own that land. So this is where he found some of the 27 Board of Trustees 28 April 20, 2005 pipes and water pipes and barbecue and tires. This wasn't mine. MR. LOHR: He wasn't concerned with doing anything to your property or to the other person's property. MS. WATSON: He did. He touched mine. MR. LOHR: I know what he tells me he did and I saw it, and as far as the other dumping goes, it doesn't make sense to me, if you were trying to improve the appearance of the house, why would you dump things there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We realize it didn't make sense. That's why we are here. We want to resolve this. We want to move this ahead. MR. LOHR: What you're recommending in terms of what you're requiring in terms of revegetation or anything else to comply. As soon as the bay constable came down as soon as she called, he made a good faith effort to comply. He filed a permit application, he paid the increased fee on the permit, contacted En-Consultants about flagging, contacted Metzgar about the survey. He was there when you were at the site. He wants to comply. He's improved the property since he's moved in. He's disturbed several feet of your property out of the five acres. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay. For the record also there was clearing done across the street also from the property. MR. LOHR: He had nothing to do with that. I'm not saying he did. I'm just saying on field inspection there was clearing done across the street. We spoke to Mr. Purita, he said he didn't do the clearing. Someone did the clearing. It just didn't happen by itself. We spoke to Mr. Purita about a survey; we said are you getting a survey because we need one to complete the application, and he said he hasn't contracted with anyone yet. MR. LOHR: He's contracted with Metzgar. They told him they're six to seven weeks out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is he going to do the survey? MR. LOHR: As far as I know he's going to do the survey after the flagging by En-Consultants. MR. PURITA: As far as across the street, this past Saturday there was some clearing done across the street, I have some photos. I'm not going to say which neighbor did it, two houses down on the south side of the 875 Eugene, there's four foot cutting that goes in to about 40, 45 feet. I have photos of that. You guys can inspect it. I'm sure I can go all around Southold and find more cases. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do unfortunately. MR. PURITA: As far as the dumping I was clear with Para and 28 Board of Trustees 29 April 20, 2005 you guys when you walked over there, that's been there a while. That wasn't us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not saying it was you, I'm saying we didn't just get off the turnip wagon, we can see fresh dumping, the phragmites have been pushed over by leaves. MR. PURITA: When did I purchase the property? MR. LOHR: February 9th. MR. PURITA: You remember this past winter there was quite a bit of snow on the ground. It's hard to rake leaves and snow. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's our point, it was done very recently. We could see that. MR. PURITA: Recently? How can you prove that? Do you have a crystal ball? I mean, I'm telling you, I didn't do it. MR. JOHNSTON: That's it, Al, table. MR. LOHR: How are we going to proceed? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need to see the dump receipts, we need to see a survey, we need to see the debris removed, and we need to see replanting plans for all three properties, who knows where the properties end. MS. TETRAULT: A replanting plan that shows for the trees that were moved and where the green briar was cut. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. LOHR: Do we have another date? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It should automatically come up on the 18th of May. 6. David Corwin on behalf of PETER NEYLAND requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing deteriorated timber bulkhead with vinyl sheet bulkheading along same line; maintenance dredge approximately 330 cubic yards of bottom to obtain a depth of 5' below mean iow water, use 100 cubic yards of spoil as backfill material, dispose of balance of spoil material at an upland location. Located: 80 Bay View Drive, East Marion, SCTM#37-4-5. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here to speak for this application? I think we didn't have any problem with this. MS. TETRAULT: Do you want to a non-turf buffer for the new bulkhead? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC did not make an inspection. I'll make a motion to close the 29 Board of Trustees 30 April 20, 2005 hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit for maintenance dredging with the stipulation there be a 10 foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 7. William DurTea on behalf of NICHOLAS CASSIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and to clear within 100 feet of the wetlands. Located: Ninth Street, Greenport. SCTM#45-6-9.1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. MORBILLO: Good evening, my name is Michael Morbillo, I'm an architect with Hawkins, Webb, Jaeger. i'm here on behalf of the applicant. We are proposing a 3,300 square foot new residence two-story with a two-car garage, and we are on 1.67 acres. MR. JOHNSTON: Do we have an authorization for you? MR. MORBILLO: We have an authorization from the property owner, William Duryea, is an employee of mine who had made the application. MR. JOHNSTON: He's not authorized to speak. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can speak but not on behalf of the client. MR. MORBILLO: I'll be here to answer any questions the Board may have. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? MS. DUFFY: Hi, I'm Darlene Duffy. I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to go through the file. My family owns a large part of the wetlands that abuts this property. And we don't have any objection to Mr. Cassis building the house, but I'd like the Board to direct him maybe -- I'm concerned about his sewer system because some of that wetlands has been -- it's been closed by the DEC recently actually. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Come up and take a look. MS. DUFFY: Thanks. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's on the landward side. MS. DUFFY: Perfect, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anything other comments on this application? Any Board comments? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How did CAC comment? TRUSTEE KING: They couldn't get in because the fence was 30 Board of Trustees 31 April 20, 2005 locked. TRUSTEE KRUPSKi: The 10 foot contour seems to be a pretty good swale that runs just outside the edge of the woods, so we would want to see the landward -- I'm sorry, not a swale, a berm -- we want to see the landward side of that berm at the beginning of the 10 foot non-disturbance area. Actually, it was outside the treed area. It was somewhere closer to here. Here's 100 foot setback, so actually we're looking at more of a 50 foot, if you could draw that on, 50 foot setback. That would be undisturbed. MR. MORBILLO: Okay, that will be included on the survey. Anything else you would like to ask? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think so. Interesting spot. TRUSTEE KING: Are there anything other comments? If there are no more I will make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I will make the motion to approve the application with the addition of the nondisturbance buffer as to be shown on the plans. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. 8. Garrett Strang on behalf of C & R REALTY requests a Wetland Permit to demolish westerly plus/minus 17 feet of building and construct new exterior wall, and make necessary interior repairs and maintenance. Add sidewalk on west side of building and pavement for handicap parking. Located: 61600 Main Road, Southold. SCTM# 56-5-3.4. MR. STRANG: Good evening, Garrett Strang on behalf of C & R Realty. This particular application, unlike most that you see and I'm here before the Board with, is unusual in that we're looking to remove part of the building and move further away from the bulkhead than one might expect from someone wanting to do an addition. It's pretty straightforward. There's a part of the building that is not only in need of repair but in looking at the whole site would be beneficial to the site and to the applicant to remove. Of course, when we remove that we have to build a new end wall in the building in that area where we're going back 15 feet. We are going to reconfigure the parking. There is parking there already and because code requires that we provide a handicap parking stall, it has to be on a hard surface, so we have to add some additional asphalt as to what's already there. So again, it's a pretty straightforward application. If the Board has any questions, 31 Board of Trustees 32 April 20, 2005 comments, I'll be happy to address them. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak for or against this application? I think the Board was very concerned with the drainage for this entire area. There were major concerns for drainage problems that are existing in the area. MR. STRANG: Right now the majority of the site is gravel. So it's a porous surface. So it will naturally perk as well it can, but I'm sure the Board is aware as most people with that particular location that the soils are relatively heavy and don't drain that well. I don't know if there's any way we can address that. If the Board had suggestions with respect to the drainage as typical with respect to dry wells that's all well and good, except they're limited with their effectiveness because of the nature of the soils there. TRUSTEE KING: What do you think, maybe in your landscaped area, the proposed landscaped area there could be some dry wells in there to take care of some of the runoff, like the roof runoff? MR. STRANG: In the proposed landscaped area we could put -- TRUSTEE KING: Maybe shallow rings, that would help. MR. STRANG: I would think so, but again, soils are such that they'll just fill up. In a heavy rain they're not ~- in the light rain, I guess maybe they will contain the water to perk out. I don't think we're objecting to it, I'm questioning the effectiveness of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was thinking along the bulkhead on the west side, it's currently gravel there now, correct? MR. STRANG: Bluestone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Keep it gravel drain along the side or even make a French drain along the edge there so you don't pave right up to the bulkhead. MR. LIEBLEIN: Will Lieblein. We may have to move where we're proposing -- the only reason we're talking about paving is because of the requirement for a handicap parking spot and there's an apron at the read there. I'm sure we can figure out somewhere else to put that spot. Whatever you guys suggest. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's the drainage that concerns us, it's not the building. The building's fine, whatever you want to do with it, I don't think that was a concern of the Board. We didn't want to see that paved. It's pervious now, we realize the drainage is a problem at least some filtration before it runs in. We didn't want to see the whole thing paved. 32 Board of Trustees 33 April 20, 2005 MR. LIEBLEIN: The whole back, the paving that we're talking about for the one spot for the handicap access, just don't do it and you're cool with this, is that kind of where you're going with this? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No. I thought it was the whole lot was proposed to be paved. MR. STRANG: No. They limited the paving to right here for the handicap spot. It has to be a hard surface. MR. LIEBLEIN: Right now the apron goes right to here and we're talking about right here (indicating). One parking space for the handicap. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, that was unclear. We didn't understand that. Okay. It says limits of paved area, so we assumed that was the limit there. MR. STRANG: It's up to this point here. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's no problem. MR. STRANG: The rest is going to remain gravel. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All right. It's clear now. MR. MCGREEVY: That shaded area on the diagram, is that the paved area that they're talking about? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. MCGREEVY: If that's a problem maybe those two spots can be put between the road and the front of the building, if that is a problem. MR. STRANG: The challenge with that is having parking in front of the building, it makes for a difficult in-and-out situation, and certainly we can't back out onto the Main Road, that's not a legal situation. MR. MCGREEVY: There's not enough space there? MR. STRANG: No, there's not enough space to maneuver. MR. MCGREEVY: How big angling the parking instead of vertical? MR. STRANG: We had it angled at one time and we felt after looking at it that it was actually better as parallel parking along that line. And, again, we're trying to be sensitive by limiting the amount of paving we're doing. MR. MCGREEVY: If I recall correctly isn't there an island right in front of that building that could be eliminated for better parking? MR. STRANG: Again, we can't do any parking between the building and the road. We spoke with the DOT on that. DOT is making their improvements doing curbing, and they're going to actually do the curb cut. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just make sure he only has that one area handicap. Artie? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. 33 Board of Trustees 34 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE DiCKERSON: How do you feel about this; are you in agreement? TRUSTEE FOSTER: As far as the drainage? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, with the partial asphalt surface just for the handicap? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Sure, it has to be a hard surface for the handicap. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine, we were unclear about the extent of it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's a very limited amount of paving. MR. STRANG: If I understand correctly the Board will still be looking for some subterranean drainage rings? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's a waste of money. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we're okay with it. i'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to demolish the westerly 17 feet of building and construct a new exterior wall, and make necessary interior repairs and maintenance, and add sidewalk on the west side of building and the only asphalt pavement be for the handicap parking area with the rest being gravel. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 9. Frank Notaro on behalf of PETER RUTTURA requests a Wetland Permit for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling. Demolition of existing roof, carport, rear deck and proposed addition of new roof, rear deck, front covered porch and two-car garage with unheated breezeway. Located: 835 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 78-7-12. MR. NOTARO: I'm Frank Notaro representing my clients, Peter and Donna Ruttura, who are present this evening. If I can answer any questions. If I just may explain a little bit, the existing decks that are on the wetlands side of the property are in terrible disrepair, so we're removing all of those along, proposing, along with the carport; we're then proposing a screened-in porch on pilings that would actually be set further back from the wetlands. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you. I think we approved the dock last year. We're only addressing the house tonight. I don't have any other comments. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this application or against it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Just need dry wells for the roof runoff. 34 Board of Trustees 35 April 20, 2005 MR. NOTARO: Sure. ,' TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I don't have any other comment other than putting dry wells in. MR. MCGREEVY: 50 foot non-tuff, I think that was one of our recommendations. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The CAC recommends approval with the condition that a 50 foot non-tuff buffer be added. MR. MCGREEVY: The house is setback. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the original dock permit we put in a restrictive mowing line on there already. MR. MCGREEVY: That was our only recommendation on that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: How many feet, Al, do you remember?. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, I don't. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm looking at a few pictures. It looks like it should be at least 25 feet non-mowing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm going to guess about 20 because it's really sandy. If you look at the pictures it's really sandy and pretty rough grass quite a ways back. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is that fine, Frank, 25 foot non-mowing, non-tuff buffer from the creek? MR. NOTARO: That was actually a stipulation from the dock permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. MR. NOTARO: I had no knowledge of that and that wasn't on any survey. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If not, we'll just create a 25 feet non-mowing, non-tuff buffer. Any other questions? If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Peter Ruttura for everything described with the addition of dry wells and a 25 foot non-mowing, non-tuff buffer 25 feet from the edge. MR. NOTARO: We can submit that tomorrow. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 10. Bill Hutchinson on behalf of KEVIN & MARGARET WHITROCK requests a Wetland Permit to renovate and construct an addition to the existing single-family dwelling. Located: 580 Private Road 17, Mattituck. SCTM#123-6-20. MR. HUTCHINSON: I'm Bill Hutchinson. We're here to represent the Whitrocks in regard to the renovation of their existing home. This house is located in the Mineola area. 35 Board of Trustees 36 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there last week. MR. HUTCHINSON: We're going to actually bring them a little bit away from the water, move ten feet off the house, make a two-story residence similar to the other homes along that strip. They're probably the last ones to really renovate. We also forwarded a bunch of photographs of the the homes along the strip, I believe we have that in the file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We noticed that the renovation would bring it in line with the neighbors. MR. HUTCHINSON: Pretty much that was our purpose in design. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Where are the cesspools located, up by the garage? MR. HUTCHINSON: That's right. New surveys are being made as we speak. Those are actually old. The beach is actually bigger now than it was in these old surveys. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's an interesting lot. It's 600 feet long and only half an acre. MR. HUTCHINSON: It's amazing, 40 feet wide. There's one past it 26 feet wide, zig-zags in and out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC didn't have any recommendations. Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this application? MR. MCGREEVY: Whoever looked to find the property, they couldn't find the property MR. HUTCHINSON: We couldn't either. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to renovate and construct an addition to the existing single-family dwelling. Located: 580 Private Road, Mattituck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think before we vote you want a hay bale line at the bulkhead, at the top of the bank during construction. MR. HUTCHINSON: Actually there's a bulkhead in there, if you want to show the top for DEC prior to a certain date, they would actually look at it different. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We just want to see a hay bale line during construction. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I make that motion with the condition that there be a hay bale line at the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. 36 Board of Trustees 37 April 20, 2005 11. William C. Goggins, on behalf of PETER WARNS requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing dwelling. Located: 8740 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM#126-5-2.1 TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here to represent the applicant? MR. GOGGINS: Yes, William Goggins, law firm of Goggins and Palumbo, 13105 Main Road, Mattituck, New York on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at this expansion of the existing home. I can't see it having any effect on the environment. MR. GOGGINS: Property on Peconic Bay in Laurel. It's bulkheaded about 81 feet from the high tide mark and approximately 64 feet from the bulkhead that has been there since the early '60s. The construction will expand a little bit, but it won't expand any closer to the water. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments on this application? MS. TETRAULT: Are they doing anything with cesspools in the increasing -- MR. MCGREEVY: There are comments. CAC recommends approval of the application with the condition that there is no change to the existing footprint and gutters and dry wells are installed to contain the roof runoff. TRUSTEE KING: I think the footprint is going to be changed because they're coming out to the side of the house. MR. MCGREEVY: If the footprint is changed will it have any adverse effect? TRUSTEE KING: Not that I can see. MR. MCGREEVY: We put it in there just in case. TRUSTEE KING: We just want to see dry wells. MR. GOGGINS: No problem. TRUSTEE KING: Simple expansion. Any Board comments? If there's no other comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation of dry wells for roof runoff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Have that dry wells are added to the plans. MR. GOGGINS: We will, thank you. 37 Board of Trustees 38 April 20, 2005 12. Cramer Consulting Group on behalf of NICHOLAS ALIANO requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and retaining walls. Located: 3705 Duck Pond Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#83-1-1 and 12 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. CRAMER: Good evening, my name is Tom Cramer, I'm representing the Alianos. I have with me here tonight Mr. Aliano's son and also his grandson. We are seeking to construct a new home on a lot that's been in the family for numerous years. It's a 34,000 square foot parcel approximately, and it fronts the Long Island Sound, and it has frontage on both Glen Court and Duck Pond Road. The parcel was created in 1968 as part of the map of Vista Bluff. The site does have a bluff located on it; we are set back from that as much as possible because of the size of the lot we pulled back against the southern property line. We do also have permits from the New York State DEC and the Health Department, and I have copies of that for the Board for the record (handing). As I said, we've pulled the house back as far as possible to the southern portion of the site to maximize the setback from the mean high water line and the northern property line coincides with the mean high water line. The house is 155 feet from the mean high water mark. The sanitary is 152 feet from that line. The house is also 47 feet from the top of the bluff and the sanitary is 55 feet from the top of the bluff. Again, the configuration doesn't allow any more setback than what we're proposing here. The house will be serviced by a well located in the southwest corner, and according to Health Department standards we've maximized the setback for the sanitary both from our well and the neighbor's well. Access will be provided from Glen Court. Runoff we're proposing direct into dry wells and no runoff will be directed off the face of the bluff, as well as there will be a natural buffer left between the house and the bluff itself. If the Board has any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any questions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh For the record, the Board only has jurisdiction on part of one of the retaining walls. It's almost completely nonjurisdictional for our Board. MR. CRAMER: That retaining wall is 25 feet from the top of 38 Board of Trustees 39 April 20, 2005 the bluff. It's located in there, even though the coastal zone management line does cut across that retaining wall. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's the extent of our jurisdiction. MR. CRAMER: I believe so. Again, we've conformed to the standards of your coastal zone management at 25 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Artie, do you have any comments on this? TRUSTEE FOSTER: I have a comment about the septic system, where it's located. It's 20 feet lower than the house. So it will never fill up. It will fill up, just run down the bank when it does. MR. CRAMER: The septic system we have sufficient effective depth in that system to address this residence that's on it, and, again, the Health Department has approved that. I've given the Board a copy of that approval. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm surprised that is in here. It's right here. MR. CRAMER: That's a reduced copy, it's maybe a little hard to see. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They let you put in a wooden retaining wall for a septic; you wouldn't have to put a concrete? MR. CRAMER: We've maintained 20 feet separation between the leaching pools and the walls. They require 20 feet separation. If we go closer than 20 feet, we have to put in a concrete waterproof retaining wall. This is a tiered retaining wall, we're proposing to plant on the retaining wall itself to help to screen it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You're planting seaward of the retaining wall you're saying? MR. CRAMER: Yes. On the retaining wall itself on the terracing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're looking for a clearing line here too. From what I can see jurisdictionally wise we have about five feet of one retaining wall? MR. CRAMER: That's approximately it, yes. MS. TETRAULT: Where is the coastal erosion line? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Runs across the tail end. Does the rest of the Board want to see this? I don't think the DEC copy has the coastal erosion line on it. MR. CRAMER: This copy may show a little better. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Our concern is destabilizing the bluff with that second retaining wall that contains the septic system. MR. CRAMER: The lower one as far as going beyond the coastal zone management line? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just the physical presence. That's our 39 Board of Trustees 40 April 20, 2005 concern on that steep, a bluff. MR. CRAMER: We're set back from the bluff 25 feet from the end of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there. MR. CRAMER: The real problem comes in with the separation between the wells. If we didn't need to worry about the separation between the wells, we would be able to provide a different layout. We're showing 105 foot separation between the well and the septic. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Any other comments? MR. CALLAS: My name is Nick Callas, I'm the homeowner that's west of the lot that's being proposed to be built. We haven't received any blueprints or anything indicating where their septic or where their sewer would be with regards to our well, if there's going to be enough space, distance. Basically we're talking about a house that's being built on a cliff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you like to see the plans? Come up and take a look. MR. JOHNSTON: Were you notified of the hearing, though? MR. CALLIS: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Here's the proposed well, there's another well here (indicating). MR. CRAMER: That's his well. TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's where the well is. MR. CRAMER: We're 105 from you, Health Department standards is 100 feet. TRUSTEE FOSTER: His elevation is 62 -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: His septic system is down -- MR. CRAMER: Ground water flow is toward the Sound. MR. CALLIS: Also there's really no parking allowed. MR. CRAMER: There will be access when you come off Front Court. MR. CALLIS: So don't you have to have a certain amount of feet? MR. CRAMER: This is Glen Court here. This is your lot here, your driveway's coming out here (indicating). MR. CALLIS: How many feet is that? MR. CRAMER: Do you know where that telephone pole is? It's about where that telephone pole is, just to the side of that telephone pole. MR. CALLIS: Is that to code as far as the neighborhood goes, the distance from my property line to your driveway? MR. CRAMER: Yes. TRUSTEE FOSTER: This is basically out of our jurisdiction anyway, that would be a zoning enforcement or building 40 Board of Trustees 4l April 20, 2005 department. MR. CALLAS: Can we have a copy of this? MR. CRAMER: We have an extra copy. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh You're located to the west? MR. CALLIS: We're west of the lot being proposed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then just west of you there's another application being proposed. MR. MCGREEVY: Is that all public water going into those? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's private wells. But they have the required distance separation. MR. MCGREEVY: The separation's there? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes. MR. JOHNSTON: It's only 100 feet. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's an old subdivision; anything new is 150. MS. TETRAULT: Isn't it 150 feet? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's an old subdivision. When this was subdivided, the standard was 100 feet. So they continue to abide by that because the lots are such size that you can't get 150 feet. Any other comments? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as requested indicating dry wells as Mr. Cramer indicated he would have, dry wells for roof runoff, that was about it. MS. TETRAULT: Revegetation in front of the -- MR. CRAMER: Revegetation on the retaining wall. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE FOSTER: All in favor? ALL AYES. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 15. Young and Young on behalf of ROBERT A. MACFARLANE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling and deck. Located. East side of Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM#136-2-6, 7 and 8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here to would like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Good evening, I have an appearance on behalf of Mr. MacFarlane. Bob Tast from Young and Young is here and Mr. MacFarlane is here. I want to put on the record because this permit expired and we're renewing it, but there is a tremendous amount of history here. And very quickly, I'll just put the permit history on the record because we have a new 41 Board of Trustees 42 April 20, 2005 record. I would ask that all the prior permits be incorporated into your record as well because I know you do have everything in your files that is relevant to this application. Historically this is part of a map of Section 2, property of M.S. Hand, and the lots that are comprising of this application are Lots 80, 81,82, 83 and part of 84. At one point in time these properties were in some instances merged and my client had originally made an application for two of the lots that he merged in order to get the permit that has subsequently expired. For the record, there were prior permits. Mr. MacFarlane merged the two lots and then really our job is made easier because there was a third lot that fortunately he had the wherewithal to acquire it, and actually there are three lots that are merged and part of this application. Also for the record, the DEC did issue a permit. It was issued November of 2002 and it is valid until 2007. The Health Department had also issued a permit in '01; this actually went through the Board of Review and was granted by the Board of Review, the regulatory division. The home now has public water runs down the street, so certain issues that were addressed during the Board of Review hearing I think have been resolved. Nonetheless, one of the property owners that still has wells or has the choice of connecting to public water and may not have chosen to connect to public water, that was addressed through the Board of Review. We don't have any issues of sanitary. We certainly comply. The original permit you reviewed addressed all this. You did a very thorough job in your original permit, this is before the code changed, but you had for the most part, all your policies were in place. The policies have merely been codified in the new code and the permit process, the review you undertook was extensive and really did address all of your policies and incorporate everything into the original permit, and we have subsequently requested to renew the permit with all the conditions, all the approvals that have previously been imposed. The Zoning Board, part of the process was that there was an effort to push the house toward the road and away from the wetlands. However, the neighbors opposed the variance towards the road and ultimately the Zoning Board ended up shrinking the house some and setting the footprint where it is today. That approval went through five public hearing processes. Ultimately the Zoning Board issued a 42 Board of Trustees 43 April 20, 2005 decision December of'03. That is the relevant date I would say because Mr. MacFarlane really did not want to be back here again but unfortunately he was under the impression that his two year time frame on the permit ran from December of '03. So when he went to make the Building Department application recently, he discovered that the Trustees permit had expired, the other permits were still going and the most - the latest permit, which was the Zoning Board, would have carried him through December '05. So it was inadvertence on his part, he misunderstood his two-year time clock. He believed that his permits, or at least your permit, would correlate with the latest permit that the Zoning Board granted. There is the third lot which you see on the southerly-most side of the property, that parcel was included in the development and has actually been sterilized, been merged; the whole application includes that piece, and that parcel has become part of the green belt that is part of your application. To get to the point, the development occurring on this property is only 2.4 percent of the overall property; therefore 97.6 percent of this property is an open space. That is a very conservation-minded application. It has been reviewed by every agency that could have jurisdiction on this has reviewed it and issued a permit. Bob Tast is here, and I want Bob to put on the record the zero runoff coefficient that has been part of the process. MR. TAST: My name is Bob Tast. I'm an architect with Young and Young. As part of the Zoning Board of Appeals process, and also I think as part of your process, we were asked to contain all the water runoff from the roof and from the building itself on the site, and to that extent we have created high points right down the middle of the site and running water left to right or east to west and collecting them in dry wells on the site. That includes on the back, on the northern face, northeasterly face, as well as the southwesterly face. The driveway is pervious material, crushed stone. MS. MOORE: If you have any questions, we'd be pleased to address them and we'll wait to hear your comments. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are there any other comments? MR. HUNTINGTON: Ray Huntington, Cutchogue speaking for the Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association. Mrs. Moore's description of the previous events is quite good and I won't repeat it. But I will add this, that the proposed house 43 Board of Trustees 44 April 20, 2005 footprint is more than half outside the as of right area to build, given all the compromises that have been made here under the old code. I will also add that on November 25, 2002, this Board issued a permit for a dwelling, and this was done with some reluctance, as you recall, and with concern about the town code, particularly Chapter 97 in effect at that time. The Board of Trustees and the Town Board well considered the revision of Chapter 97 and properly changed the wetland law of the Town of Southold. And now, we have a new event and that is the permit that was issued back in November of 2002 has expired. And not only that, the ability to extend it has also expired and the applicant has applied for a new permit with what appears to be the same plan. But in the interim the town code has revised the town code to eliminate the concerns of 2002. Current permit approval depends on satisfaction of the existing Town code, the Town code that exists right now. This application does not satisfy the condition that the dwelling be less than 100 feet from wetlands; it does not satisfy the condition that landscaping be less than 50 feet from the wetlands, and part of the driveway is less than 50 feet from the wetlands. The members of the Fleet's Neck Property Owners Association consider this site unbuildable and therefore encourage the Board of Town Trustees to reject this application. We have submitted these comments in the form of a letter. If you need extra copies, we would be happy to provide them. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comments? MR. VALE: My name is Carl Vale, I have a letter (handing), I'm across the street from this parcel. It's a letter from myself and my spouse. "Dear Trustees, as adjacent property owners and resident taxpayers of Southold Town we request that you deny the applicant, Robert MacFadane. The Town wetlands code has changed since the applicant received a permit to build from the Trustees. The new requirement for a 100 foot setback from wetlands leaves this property with no building envelope. While it may be helpful at times to grant relief to property owners who are trying to comply with Trustees requirements and zoning requirements, it does not make sense when we have a situation like this where the applicant does not meet any of the requirements of the Trustees or Zoning Board without 100 percent exemptions of these requirements. Approving this application essentially bends all these 44 Board of Trustees 45 April 20, 2005 requirements until it confounds the basic intent of the law. "The issue of the confiscation of the property rights can be raised, but the issue of wetlands protection is a bigger one. The wetlands on this property belong to the Trustees and the Town and all of us. These are also property rights to be respected. As for the applicant I suggest that the Trustees, the Town and the Nature Conservancy work together with him to purchase this property. Mr. MacFarlane is a real estate developer and is well aware of the risks of investment, this might be a way for him to get his money back. "And finally, length of process and investment of time and money to secure permits certainly weigh heavily on the application, however, the amount of time and effort spent by the opposition is definitely equal to the claim and should receive equal weight from the Trustees. It's not the job of our Trustees to insure investment results but to protect the basic resources which make this type of property so valuable. Sincerely" TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Sir. MR. BELL: Pete Bell, Cutchogue. I live about two houses across the street from this proposed development. Several years ago we presented to you 1,100 signatures on a petition which asked you to use your good offices to work for the purchase by the Town of this property in question. We showed its value as a nursery for fish, ducks, geese and other wildlife. This land being considered for a house is almost 40 percent wetlands. It borders a freshwater inlet to the creek on which it will abut. In order for it to be approved previously and after much convoluted reasoning, the footprint were moved back and forth many times and so were the cesspool locations. The frontage from the road was reduced 50 feet to 38 feet. The developer was a accommodated despite our protests. Now that the law has been changed so that it now recognizes the true value of the wetlands, we feel it should be enforced and that no new permits should be issued for this desecration of our creek and wetlands. The real estate developer's investment is just that, an investment, and we know they go up and down. There is nothing sacrosanct about the investment, witness the stock market's decline a few days ago of almost 200 points. If you lose in stocks, ifs a personal loss; if the town loses and this land goes private, we lose generations of wildlife development and the resources are gone for 45 Board of Trustees 46 April 20, 2005 good. We should hold these resources in trust for our children and grandchildren for their future enjoyment and their education. So we ask you once again to save our creeks and bays and wetlands and beaches for all to enjoy. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you giving us a copy of that lette~ MR. BELL: I'll get it to you. I just wrote it up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Anyone else? MR. MACFARLANE: I'm Robert MacFarlane. In about November of '02, an approval was gained here. The approval was gained when we went ahead and added the third lot. Back if I recall that evening there was a comment that the guy did everything we wanted him to do, everything we asked him to do over the years, and we went ahead and we added the third lot. When we added the third lot, and we have pictures and diagrams here I'll show you. When we added the third lot we did something a little different, we took about one-third of this property, it went into a buffer zone, one-third went into a permanent green belt so there could be no obstructions of views or sight lines from two of these gentlemen's houses out to the water. We reached out to accommodate in the best way possible. In fact, in December of '03 about a year and-a-half later we finally received the ZBA approval. In that process we had to go back to the DEC to gain additional approval, which we did, that's another piece that took a great deal of time. In May of'04, I joined the association. And I need to share with you, it was a little bit of a relief when I did because I was beat up pretty much for three and-a-half years. Almost everyone except two people at the association came over and said, hey, bygones are bygones, sorry we gave you a difficult time, we're here today, welcome. And I really felt assured okay, bygones are bygones. The neighborhood as you're aware is an older neighborhood. Most houses are 20 feet from the water, some properties have a house 12 feet off the road, some properties have more than one house on the lot. I have heard now three, four times over the years, MacFarlane heads a company, and they are developers. I certainly do. I had a company called Homes for America Holdings, we restore, rebuild cities throughout the United States. One of our sites, says, a huge site in downtown Hartford is actually becoming, in addition to mixed use, a U.S. national park. We say to the people that we do business with, if they didn't pay us and we had enough money to put bread on the table, we'd do it anyway; it's a passion. Yes, I care, I care about development and when we laid out this property, and we'll show you, we laid it out 46 Board of Trustees 47 April 20, 2005 at the request of ZBA and this Board as well so that not a drop of water came off that roof into the wetlands, that everything was captured. Care of the envirenment, I was on the site in May of '04, gentleman acress the street from you, someone had clear cut right down to the water. I asked one of the neighbors I said what happened here. The person said, well, you see they're putting in some trees for me, I guess what they did is illegal and they're trying to be nice to me. I don't think the association came up with one complaint that was registered about clear cutting down to the water. Here we have buffers, storm drains, setbacks, a house that on one end the living end is 24 feet wide, on the garage side 20 feet wide. Some people would like to have made this an eight foot wide house, which, of course, would make it unhabitable. I care, yes, I head a company that does care, it cares about the envirenment, and we've received awards frem threughout the United States because of the work we do. What I would like to do, if I can, if I could approach the Board. Here is the house, here is the green belt, there's one, two, three lots. This is the third lot that we acquired after the request or suggestion of this Board, and this became green belt, this became buffer, 2.4 pement of the total property became house. If I can, let me go back here, very important, you'll see a house here and here, the reason -- this is Mr. Vale's house -- the reason we did this is so he had no obstruction of view, permanent, it's been signed, it's a green belt. This is probably a better picture, again, buffer, green belt, house, 24 feet, 20 feet on this side. This point here is Mr. Tast, this is 50 feet from the wetlands. MS. MOORE: 60. MR. TAST: Everything is 50 feet from the wetlands. MR. MACFARLANE: But this line represents 50 feet frem the wetlands, this is 38 feet from the road. This was squished pushed, tugged and put there. TRUSTEE FOSTER: If I remember correctly you reduced the size of the house? MR. MACFARLANE: We reduced the size a number of times to the point where I think we were down to 23 feet, I said can I have another and you went (indicating), which I assume was okay, so I had 24 because if you have two reoms, by the time you got the insides, you get about 11'6" on each side. So the house has been made as small as can be. In fact, the 47 Board of Trustees 48 April 20, 2005 way the ZBA was approved a year and-a-half later, I was already out of sync with this Board because we had to go back to the DEC. I guess that's it. Sorry to let you have everything that I am aware of, but sometimes I mean, you just got to be open plain and clear as to what does represent environmental concern. And this place, if all of the houses in Cutchogue were that concerned and have that many green belts and that many storm retentions, I need to tell you, I'm a kayaker, we'd all be better off. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's true. MR. JOHNSTON: Pat, approximately how many square feet is on the first floor of the house? MR. MACFARLANE: 1,500, sir. ,And the height of the roof I think was 28 feet, so there was no secret third floor to be developed. MR. BELL: Peter Bell, Cutchogue. Mr. MacFarlane made one misstatement that I would like to correct. His house I believe it's on the south side, but every house that's south of his is at least 100 feet from the road. I'm talking about at least 10 or 15 houses is 100 feet from the road, not 20 feet. So that's what makes this design stand out so much, has to be 38 feet from the road, finally, if it's done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? MR. JOHNSTON: Pat, is it a 3,000 square foot house total? MS. MOORE: Total first and second floor. MR. MACFARLANE: That includes the garage. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Does the Board have any other concerns? We have been through this many times. We're comparing a stamped approval from 2002 to what's been submitted here tonight. The only difference I can see, or one of the big differences besides the drainage work, which certainly looks effective. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's a big advantage. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a very big advantage, on the approval of 2002 shows the house at 26 feet off the road, now, you went to the ZBA and they gave you -- MR. MACFARLANE: Thirty-eight feet, sir. MS. MOORE: The house was shrunk, they were willing to push it closer to the road, but the neighbors used their arguments with the Zoning Board to move us away from the road. The Zoning Board reduced the size of the house to the minimum possible to have a minimal space. The neighbors' professed concerns with the wetlands would have logically pushed us towards the road rather than keeping us at the 50 48 Board of Trustees 49 April 20, 2005 foot mark, but they were insistent in not pushing us in such a way that would benefit the wetlands. Ultimately, as you see, the DEC has approved this. We have mitigated absolutely every environmental factor that's in your permit standards. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have Health Department approval? MS. MOORE: Yes. They were going in for a building permit when they realized that the Trustees permit expired. Everything is in place, DEC, Health Department, Zoning Board. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE FOSTER: It depends if they went to the Board of Review and get it reduced, usually it would be 100 feet on that because it's a previous developed subdivision, small lots. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It shows over 100. MS. MOORE: What is your question? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Talking about the well, cesspool separation distances. MS. MOORE: At the time these houses were built 100 feet was required by the Town since then it's 150, that's why you go to the Board of Review if you can't meet the 150. There's actually public water on the street so that if that neighbor had a real concern about the water quality, they could connect to public water. MR. BELL: Excuse me, that's gratuitous of Pat. I don't drink public water because it has chlorine in it, thank you, and I certainly could hook up to it, but I don't intend to. I shouldn't have to either, thank you. MS. MOORE: That's why the Health Department does not make him hook up, even though it's there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We did review this under the old code many times, and we did review this last week in the field under the new code; and the new code is written to waive or alter the setbacks for site specific or environmental conditions justify such action. In light of the development in the whole neighborhood, I can't see -- personally I can't see where this house is going to have a negative impact on the creek. All the water is contained on the site. You're not going to have anything coming off the property to go on the road. You're not going to have any runoff into the wetlands, certainly. We've maximized the buffer as much as 49 Board of Trustees 50 April 20, 2005 possible. It's unfortunate that we can't save every available existing vacant lot in town, and we certainly have tried. But I'll make a motion, based on the environmental conditions and based on a thorough review of this, to approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor?. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would just like to say that around the existing house, because there's not a complete 50 foot buffer all the way around that, that after the construction of the house that that be replanted to make it 50 feet or a non-turf buffer?. MS. MOORE: We may have a problem getting around the house. To bring it to 50 feet, you're going to go right to the -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It will be 50 feet non-turf after construction. MR. MACFARLANE: Most of the property in all that green belt, and it's in the application for the approval, was to be planted with bear berry, vinca minor, ferns, I might add blueberry, we had a lot of blueberry here years ago, so those natural pieces of vegetation is what goes into that green belt. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What Peggy's putting into the resolution is that after construction that the remaining in some places roughly eight feet be non-turf after construction, specifically the back of the house. MR. MACFARLANE: Agreed. Wouldn't have it any other way. MS. MOORE: Non-turf is grass. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Non-turf is no grass. MR. MACFARLANE: He is talking natural vegetation. MS. MOORE: Some kind of natural vegetation. We just have to be able to get around the property. MR. MACFARLANE: Let me be clear on something. There is no inducement that I would know that would have me put grass there. It wouldn't fit, doesn't belong. The natural vegetation belongs there automatically, it's going in. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. All in favor?. ALL AYES. 16. Charlotte A. Biblow, Esq. on behalf of VINCENT & CAROL MANAGO requests a Wetland Permit for complete removal of the existing 64' wood jetty and restoration of the beach on the subject property with approximately 300 cubic yards of dredged or borrow sand. Located: 8225 Nassau Point Road; Cutchogue. SCTM#118-4-10. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to 50 Board of Trustees 51 April 20, 2005 speak to this application? MS. BIBLOW: Yes, I am Charlotte Biblow of Farrell Fritz, EAB Plaza, Uniondale, New York on behalf of Vincent and Carol Manago. I would like to hand up the affidavit of posting and some green cards that we received (handing). We are asking in this application to remove a 64' jetty and to restore the beach, included in our application package were two different surveys, one was done by Peconic Surveyors, which was done on behalf of the Managos that shows that the jetty is on the Manago property. There's also a 2002 survey done by Mr. Ingegno on behalf of the Aloyas, who are the next door neighbors, that also shows that the jetty is on the Manago property. Included in the application as well is a report of Gary Mulnar, a professional engineer, Mr. Mulnar is here tonight and is available to answer any questions you have with respect to his report, but you can see from his report that there has been significant erosion since this jetty has been repaired in 2001, not only on the Manago beach but every beach south of that as well. And it was caused by the renovation of this jetty. The history of this jetty this Board may be very familiar with. In 1995 before my clients owned the jetty, there was a finding by the Town Conservation Advisory Council that the jetty was non-functioning and that finding is in the packet as well. As I mentioned the jetty was repaired without permits in 2001 by the Aloyas. Since that time the beach on the Manago side has been decimated. During the summer of 2001, there was a hearing before this Board about repairs that were done by the Aloyas without permits. There was discussion at that hearing about this particular jetty and the repairs that were done. At that time there were comments made on the record by this Board that the repairs that were done to the jetty were not authorized, it was a violation and it had to be undone. I have a copy of the transcript, which I can hand up to you for that August meeting (handing). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. BIBLOW: I do want to be very forthright. There is a pending lawsuit between the Managos and the Aloyas, where the Managos are suing the Aloyas for the damage done to the beach by the repairs that were done in 2001. This Board I understand has been to that beach recently twice and is very familiar with the damage that is being caused not just to the Manago beach but to the Shift beach and everyone south 51 Board of Trustees 52 April 20, 2005 of that as well. This Board has jurisdiction over this jetty and it should order that it be removed. Because if it's not removed, this wall, as opposed to a jetty, will continue to decimate the beach. I don't know if when you were at the beach if you noticed how the repairs were done. This was not just an in-kind/in-place repair. In 2001 what was done to this jetty was that it was widened, there was an extra row of sheathing put in so instead of one row of sheathing there's two rows of sheathing. It was also made higher. All of these repairs were done without permits and have caused a destruction of the beach. So we would urge this Board to grant the application. Again, Mr. Mulnar is here, if you have any comments or questions about his findings or his report. MR. GAFFNEY: I'd like to speak against the application. My name is Robert Gaffney, with Meyer, Suozzi, English and Klein, 425 Broadhollow Road, Melville. Counsel is correct, there is, in fact, a lawsuit pending. It's in Supreme Court Suffolk. It's on for oral motion, oral hearings on the 3rd or 4th of May. The issues that have been raised are all contained within that lawsuit. It's my belief that bringing this matter before the Board of Trustees today is an effort to basically bypass part of that or create a case for in the Supreme Court action. Clearly no one questions the fact that some of the issues are within the jurisdiction of the Board of Trustees and you have every right to decide those issues. But there are much more extensive issues as well, including issues of adverse possession with regard to the jetty, ownership of the jetty. The causes of action that were alleged in the summons and complaint included nuisance, trespass, negligence, negligence per se. There were a whole host of other allegations, and part of the relief sought is injunctive relief. The issue as to who owns the jetty is by no means one that has been decided, and clearly it is capable of being decided in a court of law because this matter has been pending since 2002. Again, Judge Baisley in Supreme Suffolk will be hearing oral arguments on this matter on the motion for summary judgment in early May, I believe it's May 3rd or 4th. So there's no reason for the Trustees to go forward at this point, to make a decision with regards to complex evidentiary matters that is already before the Supreme Court. It may be determined that the owner of the jetty is, in fact, the applicant. It may be, and is likely in my view, to be determined that the owners of the jetty are the 52 Board of Trustees 53 April 20, 2005 AIoyas. In which case they would be responsible for complying with all the Town's requirements and certainly would be within the jurisdiction. But to decide an application on behalf of a person who's saying they own something without having adjudication of that issue doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Simply what we're asking is that the Board deny the application subject to a further application, if it's desired, at such time as the title and ownership of the subject jetty is decided. There is that issue and other issues. Some of the issues that need to be decided in this matter go back to the 1950s when the Army Corps of Engineers had suggested to the residents of Nassau Point that jetties ought be built. There is a whole history that goes back to the '50s with regard to these jetties, and certainly that's within the knowledge of the Trustees. You have seen those jetties, you know what the impact is. It also has to be assessed as to whether the damage being alleged in the summons and complaint and referred to here today by the applicant whether that damage is, in fact, a result of other factors, whether their beach was that way before. These are all issues that are going to take a lot of time to resolve in complicated real property litigation. So my request simply is that we are this close, we're on oral argument as of May 3rd. I would suggest or request that the Board deny this application and that the fact is that the applicant lacks the standing to make the application until such time as title to this jetty is determined, which has not yet been done. We believe it's our jetty. MR. JOHNSTON: Sir, could I ask you a question? Could you tell me who you're representing? MR. GAFFNEY: I represent John and EIvira Aloya, they're the residents immediately to the north of the applicant's property. The jetty is constructed on their property immediately adjacent to it. The jetty has been there since the '50s. They, the Aloyases, purchased the property in 1986. The applicants purchased their property I think in 1996. There is a whole history, as you might imagine, between these two individuals; the kind of history that is best resolved with full evidentiary ability in a court. MR. JOHNSTON: Your comment about the case is that because you're one of the attorneys in the case? How did you get that information? MR. GAFFNEY: I have that from the attorney that's representing the defendant in the action. I represent the family themselves. 53 Board of Trustees 54 April 20, 2005 MR. JOHNSTON: The family meaning the Aloyas? MR. GAFFNEY: The Aloyas. This claim has been covered by both homeowner's insurance and title insurance. So there are complicated title issues involved. Counsel for the title company and homeowners will be representing the family in that proceeding. This matter is separate and apart from that. Because this is an application on behalf of another party seeking another remedy that we don't believe is appropriate; and they're making an application as if the property is theirs, which is an issue that has not been determined. We believe it's ours; they believe it's theirs. Unless we want to get into complicated discussion of adverse possession adverse user and all of those issues going back to the '50s, the appropriate place for that remedy and for that discussion, in fact, would be in the Supreme Court, where it's scheduled already before Judge Baisley on May 3rd. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This gentleman is waiting. MR. GRAHAM: My name is George Graham. I live at 8625 Nassau Point Road in Cutchogue, three houses down from the Managos, southward. This jetty was built in the fall of 1962 by Dorothea Chute. It originally never had permission of the State to be built. It did get a permit from the Corps of Engineers, who took no position, contrary to what Mr. Gaffney just said about it, as a matter of fact, they said it was unnecessary. The original jetty was five feet high and 75 feet protruding from the bulkhead. A subsequent hearing before the State's Office of General Services at the time in 1964, the jetty was cut down to three feet and also reduced in length. When my parents purchased the house that I live in in 1958, the total distance of the lot was 428 feet. According to the surveyor, who said that at 45 years of experience - they're based in Greenport -- that did the survey, in 1919, the house had 432 feet, there was a four foot loss in erosion over that period of time. I have a picture of myself playing on this beach in August 1962, before this jetty was built; there's 30 to 40 feet of sand. Right now the high water mark at high tide touches the bulkhead. All the sand is gone. I would speak in support of any motion to take down this jetty. I also note that the height of the jetty is at least three feet and I noticed that from the relevant section of the Town code that governs these proceedings, any jetty would have to be of Iow height, and that's defined as 18 inches to two and-a-half feet, so 54 Board of Trustees 55 April 20, 2005 this is clearly illegal any way. Not only that, but two houses northward of Dr. Aloya's house, the jetty was improved and al~o raised in height to three feet a year or two back. I doubt that this Board gave permission for that to happen when it was repaired. At any rate, when the repairs were done if it was restored to three feet, it was not impermissible with the current Town code. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Just a brief explanation on the height of the jetty, what's called for in town code now and also which is consistent with the DEC policy, it's called a Iow profile jetty, and it's not so much the starting point that's important as how it ends. So if you look north, there are two short jetties that are pretty high, which you referred to, and if you go north of that there are two longer ones that taper down completely into the water. MR. GRAHAM: When was the last time you were there? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Last week. MR. GRAHAM: There's a jetty at the Frey and Frasier boundary, that's two houses north of the Aloyas that used to be a foot above the sand, now it's three foot. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But if you go further north there's two jetties, they're very hard to see. MR. GRAHAM: You mean the five foot jetties? They've always been in the sand. They're non-functional. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They are functioning because they fill the compartment, and then they let the sand wash over it. MR. GRAHAM: But they're built above the high water mark. If I understand the two small jetties you're talking about -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Not the short ones, the ones further north of those, there's two north of those that we noticed also. They taper off completely into the water. They're almost completely buried. They're functioning, they hold the sand. Once the compartment's filled, the sand washes over and continues down the beach. That's the way a Iow profile jetty is supposed to -- MR. GRAHAM: In the 40 years, from 1919 to 1958 when my parents bought their house, there was only four feet of erosion. Since that time and since that jetty was built, there's been about 30 to 40 feet of erosion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When did the east side of Nassau Point get bulkheaded? I MR. GRAHAM: The house we live in was built in the '30s, and it originally had a concrete bulkhead, which was destroyed 55 Board of Trustees 56 April 20, 2005 by the ice storms. I can't really tell you when it was bulkheaded, but it was bulkheaded by 1958 when my parents bought the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. SCHIFF: Good evening, my name is David Schiff. I'm the resident at 8425 Nassau Point Road, I'm the homeowner that is directly south of the Managos and two homes south of the Aloya property, and I wanted to first thank the Board very much for their time and energy on this topic. As you know and as you've seen, my beach has been materially impacted for the worse with the reconstruction of the jetty. I purchased the house in '98. I had a beach with some rocks but certainly not the devastated beach that I have now. This jetty has eroded and dropped the sand level by a few feet causing potential undermining of my bulkheading, preventing my enjoyment of the beach, and it's a very serious issue. So I would ask the Board to grant the Manago permit for the removal, for the destruction of the jetty to restore it to a nonfunctioning state, so that the natural flow can be restored and the beach rebuilt. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. BIBLOW: I would like to respond to a couple of things that Mr. Gaffney said because I am involved in the lawsuit, and I do represent the Managos in the lawsuit. Whether the judge issues an order saying that it's the Manago jetty, the Aloya jetty or no one's jetty, the problem is that that jetty is destroying Nassau Point and this Board has an obligation to correct that. In 2001, you had an opportunity to do that, and what you did was you relied upon the good faith of the Aloyas and the Managos to try to work it out themselves. Unfortunately, the AIoyas did not act in good faith. The minute they walked out of this hearing in 2001 they refused to do anything about it. We had no choice but to sue, but that does not change the situation which is that this jetty is too high, too wide, too long and it is destroying a beautiful beach that goes all along Nassau Point. As I said, I do have Mr. Mulnar here, and I would really encourage the Board if they had any questions about the devastation this jetty is causing. This is not a Iow profile jetty; this is high profile. This is a high profile, tremendously high jetty. There is nothing that the Supreme Court has done to stop this Board from acting. There is no stay in place that prevents you from acting in your lawful jurisdiction about this jetty. Thank you. 56 Board of Trustees 57 April 20, 2005 MR. GAFFNEY: If I may, since the matter is before the Supreme Court, in all its various issues, many of which are very complicated, what we have heard tonight is basically anecdotal information from people that are potential witnesses in that same action. They're not being cross-examined, time and places are not being established, it's not in accordance with the rules of evidence, and I'm not suggesting that it's inappropriate. What I'm suggesting is that we have at our disposal in less than a month a vehicle for establishing the truth, not what people remember, not anecdotal information, not unsubstantiated evidence, but a trail process that can establish the truth. It can establish who the owner of the property is. By the way, one of the causes of action is for injunctive relief, asking the court to compel the removal of the jetty, but of course, it first has to be determined that it is, in fact, different from what the ^loyas are saying, and that's a process that has to go on. And I would suggest that it's not a process that we're going to get to the bottom of tonight. We're asking to let the process that's under way in the Supreme Court fulfill itself. There will be testimony, there will be an opportunity to rebut, there will be an application of the rules of evidence, and the court will make a determination on these issues. Have the ^loyas been negligent, should the plaintiffs be entitled to injunctive relief, were the Aloyas negligent per se; is there trespass; is there nuisance. This is a rather complicated real property litigation. It involves some relatively serious issues. Once those things have been sorted out in the proper form, the Trustees have not lost their opportunity to act in a way that they feel is appropriate. Whoever it is that's determined to be the owner of the jetty then would be the subject of that action. Nobody denies, and certainly I wouldn't, that the Boards of Trustees has an absolute right to control the way construction is done in a wetlands area, to compel the removal of the jetty too, if it sees fit, all of those things. But the applicant is making the request today to remove their jetty. It has not be been established by any means that it is, in fact, their jetty. An argument could be made if it is their jetty and it is in violation, it's been that way for a long time. This jetty has been there, it was my understanding, since the '50s. Even if it's true that it's been there since the '60s, the period of time that it's been there under the control and open and notorious ownership of the Aloyas raises some significant issues which are part of 57 Board of Trustees 58 April 20, 2005 the defense in that action. So it seems to me that this would probably not be the best forum to reach a conclusion on those very complicated issues certainly since it's this close. At the conclusion of that action I'm sure Judge Baisley will recommend solutions that he feels is appropriate and certainly the Board of Trustees would be able to act. MR. JOHNSTON: Artie has asked me an answer that I cannot give, and maybe I've gotten Mr. Gaffney's opinion on it as one of the lawyers in the case, do you represent that the ownership of the jetty will be determined by this court case? MS. BIBLOW: It's certainly something that -- MR. JOHNSTON: Is there a possibility that that will be decided by Judge Baisley at the outcome of the case, the ownership of the jetty? MS. BIBLOW: The ownership of the jetty is certainly an issue in the lawsuit. But there is another issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's what I was going to ask because that's central to what we're going to decide here eventually. This has come up many times in the past, who owns it, and then we usually aren't charged with deciding who owns it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We table and let a court of law decide it. MS. BIBLOW: Let me suggest this then. This jetty was repaired by the Aloyas, there's no doubt about this, without permits in 2001, and you can order them to undo that, that you definitely have the authority to do, and if you do that the jetty will go back to a nonfunctioning jetty, which is what it was before they illegally, improperly and unlawfully did what they were going to do. I do also want to say something about the court case because Mr. Gaffney makes it seem like May 4th everything will be decided. That is not true. There's a summary judgment argument on for I think it's May 3rd. The judge can rule from the bench. The judge doesn't have to rule from the bench. He can say there's issues of facts, we're going to go to trial, there's appeals. I may be back in front of you in another year or two, meanwhile, the devastation that this jetty is causing continues to occur. This Board has the jurisdiction to order that to be undone. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We can't order something to be done or undone on someone else's property. We really need to make a determination on who owns the jetty and then who owns the property. 58 Board of Trustees 59 April 20, 2005 MS. BIBLOW: But if you have someone that has illegally without permits done something to the jetty, can't you order them to undo that, regardless of who owns that? I think you can do that. They have acted illegally. They have violated your code. MR. GRAHAM: This has been going on a number of years. I too have had to file a very costly lawsuit so I can protect the value of my property. Knowing how the courts work, it will be a number of more years before this issue is resolved. There are two surveys in front of you, one from each side, that show the ownership of this piece of land. There's two surveys. So, if we could talk about adverse possession and other issues, but there's nothing been presented here on the other side by way of survey that shows the ownership. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's what I was going to ask next. MR. GRAHAM: Meantime, the courts take years and I've watched my beach drop one, two, three feet, and my bulkheading is being undermined, and that's a risk that I can't afford to wait on. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: During the course of discussion on this, we saw the aerial photograph before the jetty was repaired showing a beach to the north and a beach to the south, where did we see that photograph? It shows a beach on the north ask south. MS. BIBLOW: I think there's an aerial photograph from 1996, and then there's an aerial photograph from 2002, that shows the difference once this jetty was reconstructed. MR. GAFFNEY: The applicants have also brought sand in from time to time. MS. BIBLOW: Not after 1996 we have not brought sand in. MR. GAFFNEY: The point that I think needs to be made again is that we could sit here today with dueling surveys, surveys which purport to show that the property is owned by this party, the jetty is owned by that party. We can have anecdotal testimony about what happened in the past when a forum exists to actually put on the stand the surveyors and find out what the basis of their surveys were, what monuments they worked from, and do that in a way that's designed to determine what the truth is, and designed to determine what the facts are. The submission of a survey, which purports to do A versus B, that's not the kind of evidence that would be necessary to be determinative of who owns the property, who owns the jetty in question. And then also determine what size is the jetty, how big is the jetty, how small is it, is it within code, not within code; all 59 Board of Trustees 60 April 20, 2005 those issues are part of the lawsuit. I would suggest that part of why we're here today is to lay the table for an action that's pending in Supreme Court. It's kind of a boot strap effort, if you will. A ruling from the Trustees that this was the case or that was the case going into a litigation on the entire issue could be of some value. What else explains the fact that the applicants made the application as if it were their jetty when in their pleadings they say it's partially their jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could both of you supply us with the pleadings for each side? MR. GAFFNEY: I have the plaintiff's complaint with me today. MS. BIBLOW: I don't know what you want. I could certainly provide you with the summary judgment motions, which would give you all the exhibits you need. My side I can get you a full set of papers, I don't know that the complaint's going to be helpful. I want to clarify one thing, there were two surveys submitted with the application. One was done by my clients, the Managos; one was done by the Aloyas, and both surveys clearly show that the line that the jetty from the bulkhead out is from my client's property. This isn't as if I sent you two surveys that we did two surveys. One was done by his client, a survey, by the way, they were instructed to get my the DEC, and they never turned it over to the DEC because it didn't agree with what they were telling the DEC. MR. GAFFNEY: 'Subsequent surveys have indicated otherwise. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One more point though, just a brief comment because we have to table this and move on. Really I think from my experience, a Iow profile jetty would serve both purposes here and it would serve both properties. This is not a Iow profile jetty. If anyone whether it was the Aloyas, the Managos or anyone came in for a reconstruction for a jetty, which they commonly do on the bay, we see it month after month, we would and the DEC would both require a Iow profile jetty, one that would trap the sand on one side and allow it to pass through to the other, and that would probably remediate a lot of or most of the erosion, and the property issue at that point would be completely moot because both property owners would benefit from the reconstruction of this jetty. MS. BIBLOW: Our clients are reasonable. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have a coastal erosion expert here? MS. BIBLOW: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could he stand up? I want to ask him a 60 Board of Trustees 61 April 20, 2005 brief question, very brief. MR. MULNAR: My name is Gary Mulnar, I'm with FPM Group, engineers from Ronkonkoma. I've lived and worked on Long Island pretty much all of my career. I've done much coastal and marine environment work. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Have you visited the site? MR. MULNAR: Yes, I have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Are you familiar with the Iow profile jetties to the north of it? MR. MULNAR: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And you see how they trap sand on both sides, maintain beach on both sides? MR. MULNAR: What you're talking about on the Iow profile jetties, I'm not sure that they are the best thing all the time. Jetties should be planned more on a global basis. When you put in a series of jetties, they should taper down as you get down to the last jetty to minimize the erosion, that kind of planning was never done on this string of jetties on Nassau Point. I think that's part of the problem. What I can see and from my experience, my client and the downstream clients, which would be south in a southerly direction, would benefit by having that jetty totally taken away. There is riprap and evidence of previous attempts at jetties that are still having some effect along that shoreline. They're more porous, they're trapping sand and allowing sand to go from one beach to the other. So I think that those stone jetties are probably more effective, they're lower profile, which would meet the definition that the DEC and the Town would like to see, certainly a Iow profile jetty would be a lot better than what's there now. As more of a quick cure, I would like to see it removed. But if it couldn't be removed, I would like to see it at least cut down by at least half and lowered no higher than the mean high tide. And that would allow sand to flow over onto my client's property. Not being a legal expert, the Board, there's a problem here, and this thing's going to go on for years and years if something's not done. The shoreline and I believe the ocean floor is under the jurisdiction of you, and the only reason you need to make a decision on who owns it is so you can decide on who's going to have to make a correction. And it's my understanding my client is willing to make that correction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I11 make a motion to table that application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. 6! Board of Trustees 62 April 20, 2005 MS. BIBLOW: Does that mean we're on next month? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Automatically, yes. And we'd like some clarification as to ownership because we cannot give someone permission. MR. GRAHAM: Let's say it takes another year. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think you have to prove it to the Town in this case, you don't have to prove it to the judge. The judge doesn't have jurisdiction to the Town. If either side can prove ownership to the Town, there is some question on the survey, and I'm looking at the Joseph Ingegno, which is certified to the Aloyas, it would seem that the jetty starts on the Manago's property and quickly crosses over. But I don't know how far the property lines extend to the east, so it's really unclear as to say where does the private property end and where does the state property begin. I think we want to clear that up also. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can I understand that regardless of that does that change the outcome of what your recommendation is going to be with respect to the repairs? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's just the ownership issue. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Is there a way you can rule on the second part before then, say it needs to be done regardless of who the owner is? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, because we can't give someone permission to go on someone else's property. I don't think we have to wait for the judge's ruling, you have to prove that to the town. AUDIENCE MEMBER: I don't have any ownership here, but I have adverse impacts. I want to understand what I can do as a neighbor. I don't have any ownership claim, but I'm being adversely impacted. What can I do? I don't care who owns it, I just want it fixed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I think you're doing all you can do. don't know what else you can do. MR. MULNAR: Either survey shows that the jetty cleady starts on the Manago property, then it crosses over. Exactly where it crosses over would be debatable. A property line has zero width, so they have to draw something and just drawing it on those surveys the width of the property line drawn is half a foot to a foot in width. So that in itself causes a great error. From my estimation looking at both surveys, the Aloya survey shows about 12 feet of the groin on the Manago property and the Manago survey shows about 17 feet. The high water line, or the old high water line, changes, which is a dynamic situation, which you well know, the high water line is only a few feet 62 Board of Trustees 63 April 20, 2005 beyond that. So if the Managos own 17 feet and they remove their 17 feet, there would only be a few more feet before it starts getting into the Town's jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's all stated -- MR. G^FFNEY: If I might, again, we get into the issue of dueling surveys. I've been involved in litigation at other times, where the lines and surveys, the monuments from which surveys were started, those things have been intensely litigated on those issues, so looking at a survey which maybe guaranteed to one party or another and differing surveys and the possibility of a third survey or fourth survey, these are issues that can't be resolved by just looking at a survey. Once that issue is brought into contention and that's part of it. Beyond that there are prescriptive rights that may accrue to people even if they have property, if they have maintained property on someone else's property. I'm not suggesting that that's the case, but what I'm suggesting is that all of those issues are tied up into that one piece of litigation, one lawsuit where all of those issues will be decided, and I can't tell you that it will be decided in its entirety on May 3rd, but it's before Judge Baisley for oral arguments on a motion for summary judgment. We'll get closer at that point. The whole issue of how large the survey is. It was alleged that in 2001 the Town cited, the Board of Trustees cited the Aloyas, their application in 2001 was for a deck. It had nothing to do with it. And it's my understanding that the Trustees said why are we bringing this other issue up, they're here for a deck; this is not before us. So there's a lot of issues that are coming up anecdotally that are coming up where people may remember in a way that may be different than it happened, and this is hardly the best forum to get that nuanced testimony. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. We have voted. 17. En-Consultants, inc. on behalf of JO ELLEN & WILLIAM AHMUTY requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 67 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Remove and replace existing 3.5' 5.5' timber steps to beach. Located. 3405 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM#53-6-10. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? No comments from the audience? CAC recommended approval of the application with 63 Board of Trustees 64 April 20, 2005 the condition of a 20 foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. As far as Board comments, I looked at this. It looked like a common in-kind/in-place replacement of a bulkhead. I spoke to Rob on the phone and the applicant agreed on a 10 foot non-turf buffer, it's a very small yard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Good TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If there are no other comments I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIVVODA: I'll make a motion to approve the permit as written with a 10 foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 20. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of PAUL MALONEY requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 4' by 25' catwalk and dispose of same. Replace with new 4' by 25' catwalk, in-kind leading to a 32" by 16' ramp onto a 6' by 20' floating dock secured by two 2-pile dolphins. Located: 1020 Goose Creek Lane, Southold. SCTM#78-8-3 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: George Costello, Sr. representing Paul Maloney. I understand the Board has concerns with the channel, the waterway channel out there and make sure we don't obstruct it. What I did was I measured the waterway itself at high tide, from high tide to high tide to that little island across the way it's 138 feet, at Iow tide minus 25 feet. So there's 83 feet of water at Iow tide and from the Iow tide mark or the high tide mark, we are 30 feet into the water. The center of the channel is actually 57 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have soundings? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, 47 inches. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you have them for the file? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. They're on your copy of your drawing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What we wanted was soundings all the way across showing the channel. MR. COSTELLO: No. I didn't go ail the way across. I went 57 feet into the center of the channel. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I know that area, George. It's a very narrow channel. Pretty big boats use this channel, if you put a float with a boat on the outside, anyone who has to navigate around it is going to run aground. 64 Board of Trustees 65 April 20, 2005 MR. COSTELLO: You know what the catch 22 is, the DEC is going to request that I have three or four feet of water. They're going to request it. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Maybe reconstruct without the float? MR. COSTELLO: My only option is to pull it back to satisfy you guys, then fight with the DEC, which is going to happen. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you want to do that now or do you want to wait a month? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We should stake it. MR. COSTELLO: I'd like to hold off and see what the DEC is going to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay. Should I table or make a motion to close? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table. MS. TETRAULT: Also, just remember you asked about removing the fence. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. They've got that chicken wire fence right on the wetlands, they have to get that out of there. MS. TETRAULT: Also, they had mulched right down to the marsh. They're mulched over the bank as well. I don't know what the fence was. MS. TETRAULT: You said to pull it back to the brick fireplace any mulching TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 21. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ARNOLD BARTON requests a Wetland Permit to repair in-kind/in-place approximately 124 linear feet of existing bulkhead. Located: 5295 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-9-13. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to comment on this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Description reads in-kind/in-place, but I would assume that they want the permit so if they have to, they can at a future date because the description in the permit which is for pilings, but the description on the agenda is for in-kind/in-place. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Either way. TRUSTEE KING: Either way it doesn't make any difference. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. 65 Board of Trustees 66 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?. ALL AYES. 22. Pat C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of MARY DIGREGORIO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' by 58' fixed timber dock, a 3' by 16' ramp and a 6' by 20' floating dock. Located: 100 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM#136-1-36. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Pat Moore. We had this here quite some time ago, we have the drawings. The Board asked us to push the dock and float back to the level of some adjacent docks. Sea Level Mapping did that for us. We think that this is going to cause a problem with the DEC because it brings the depth of water to about one and-a-half feet, and I think that's just not going to be acceptable. We will make our best effort to go to the DEC and make an application of this. I would remind the Board that the way the docks in this area work, you're pushing us back to a cove. This is the revised drawing (handing). You can see that the dock to the north is set back because of the cove that's there. Our property is sticking out further, and you're asking us to be in line with a relatively old dock that predates the depth requirements of the DEC and the dock to the northwest that's further back. We have done what you have asked, but we really think it's going to be a problem. We would certainly suggest pushing it out somewhat, even pushing it out to two feet of water gives us a better chance with the DEC. But we have done what have you asked. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The only thing is what we've asked is an established pier line there. Those docks were built before the DEC had their water depth concerns, but like we have said before we can't have a dock going out that much further than the neighbor's docks. They should conform with the pier line. Yes, they will have a problem with the DEC, but in most cases people are going to with a fixed dock and a pole and not have the float. So if they don't get a float, I would be inclined to approve this unless some other Board member has a problem because it adheres to the pier line, but if they don't get a float with the DEC, they could get a dock with a pole and just tie to the fixed dock. MS. MOORE: Keep in mind that your pole lines have to be with properties that are consistent on a straight line. When you are taking a pole line based on a curve, you're 66 Board of Trustees 67 April 20, 2005 artificially creating a setback on the property which doesn't follow the water line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know what you're saying. MS. MOORE: It creates a non-navigable condition and that's not the intent behind the Board's - TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the lay of the land there. I don't think we can do much about that. MS. MOORE: Navigability is one of those kind of rights that each property owner -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We can talk all night about navigability. MS. MOORE: We'll move forward with this drawing. We think you should keep some reasonable thoughts, be reasonable with us. Not even 10 feet, it probably is less, another four feet at least gets us closer to the two foot mark, and it at least puts a boat within the two foot depth of water range. This clearly puts us between one and-a-half and the two. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry. Any other comments on this? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looks good. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay. Pat? MS. MOORE: We'll go with this and go to the DEC and see what they say. If you can persuade them to give us something that works, we're willing to live with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The picket fence was an issue. MS. MOORE: I think we well agreed the last time, they have young children and right now the picket fence provides a safety feature. I think you asked that within five years it would be removed and the applicant was here at the time, he had no problem with that five years, his kids would be old enough. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the plans received April 20, 2005 for the 36 foot dock, 10 foot ramp, and a 6' by 20' float within the pier line of the adjoining docks. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. MR. MCGREEVY: Al, in the final conclusion was it our consideration of the CAC that the catwalk be extended on the landward side to grade level and to the masonry wall for consideration of the wetlands? I don't know if that was finally put in there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it wasn't. Is that a concern of the applicant? 67 Board of Trustees 68 April 20, 2005 MS. MOORE: I'm sorry. You want us to take the catwalk and bring it up to -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. The CAC recommended that the applicant extend the catwalk to the masonry wall. MR. MCGREEVY: Extend it landward to grade level to that masonry wall. MS. MOORE: That's quite a bit further back. It certainly makes it more convenient to get onto your catwalk. I don't think the applicants would have a problem with that. I think we were trying to limit the length of the catwalk. MR. MCGREEVY: Landward no problem. MS. MOORE: Does the Board want to entertain that? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Artie, what do you think? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Yes, I think it's a good idea. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Peggy? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is it to get it over the marsh? MS. MOORE: Elevate it over the marsh. So what I did was took the catwalk and extended it to approximately the wall; is that all right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. So you can get us a new plan. MS. MOORE: I will do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we'll issue you a permit. I'll make a motion to approve roughly a 60 foot catwalk. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. 23. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of GEORGE KOFINAS requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing residence, construct a second floor addition, install an in-ground swimming pool and pavilion. Located: 552 East Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#110-7-18.1 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore and Craig Arm on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Kofinas. This is an existing house with some renovations going on with the house, and the additions are all on the house on the landward side. The pool was just about touching the 100 foot jurisdictional limit and because of retaining walls, all of the activity on this property it just made sense to present it before this Board and have the Board review it. I know you were on the site, and if you have any comments. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There was a request to prove that the beach house was built prior to 1991. MS. MOORE: You can see by the age of it, I think you can conclude that it's before '91. 68 Board of Trustees 69 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Prior to '91 I was very young. MS. MOORE: A mere child, but construction standards have improved since that time. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We questioned how extensive it was. MS. MOORE: You realize there's no activity going on at the beach house. The only application is for the house and up high. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh But we had a discussion with Craig on the site about the beach house and the fence and getting permits for everything that the applicant thought appropriate at the same time MR. ARM: I had been trying to find some information that showed it was there prior to 1991, which I have not been able to do yet. What I was able to find was they had a pool in this location previously, and in 1991, when they had the application for the pool, I do have a copy of the certificate of occupancy which approved their fence which was actually given in '93, which part of that pool enclosure obviously it's using the back part of that beach house. So that is what I do have. So far that's the only records that I am able to find. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Didn't we also ask that that fence TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right. MS. MOORE: I did have Craig check with the Building Department, he presented a letter to the Board which -- MR. ARM: I believe it was dropped off the 19th. They're talking about when we were at the site we had a discussion about the possibility of moving the fence and the Kofinases, if that would be okay with them. The one problem was when I went to the Building Department and spoke to them there were a whole series of things they were questioning how we could actually achieve something that would be a legal pool fence in any of the locations that I was suggesting to them. We had mentioned on top of the Iow retaining wall that's there, they said the only problem is they would consider anything, virtually a solid wall or nothing shy of constructing a regular pool fence at that location. If it would have a foothold where somebody could step over it, it wouldn't meet any requirements of a pool fence. And the other issue was a termination point as far as across the top of the stairs at the landing there were some issues there where they were wondering where do we end it and stop it. It just seemed like it was going to be a lot more work than Damon from the Building Department, his recommendation was it was probably best off to stay where it was. It didn't create any issue 69 Board of Trustees 70 April 20, 2005 on their behalf as far as for a pool enclosure not that the Trustees wouldn't perhaps like to see it elsewhere, but it became an issue with the Building Department and where we could actually put it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We have approved fences down on the bluff on the Sound for a pool. So they're not visible. MS. MOORE: Into the bluff you mean? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So they're not visible. MS. MOORE: In other words, bring this fence up into the bluff some, set it back five or ten feet. Right? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We had talked about putting it by the retaining wall so you have an unrestricted view, then the fence is set down the bluff so you don't see it. It's still legal. MS. MOORE: It has to be a proper enclosure, right. The only way you would be taking the existing fence, it's pretty stable there, you have a lot of vegetation, everything is very stabilized, you would actually be removing it and putting a new fence into the bluff and jeopardizing stability of that bank. So it seems to me that the little good it does in visibility, it might end up compromising the bank. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we were concerned about being on the beach. It was with the animals, it was restricting a lot of movement. I thought we talked about bringing it up and backing it up to that retaining wall, since that's going to be worked on anyway. MS. MOORE: It can't because it would be in violation of the enclosure ordinance, that's what you asked Damon because a fence has to be actually to grade. You can't have anything that you could potentially stand on to go over it. That's the limitation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It would just be seawards of the new retaining wall. MR. ARM: They're proposing instead of putting it right on the existing retaining wall, where we could step on the retaining wall, just putting it in the bank just beyond that wall. So it's just not visible just down the bluff. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It wouldn't be as visible because you have the retaining wall, it would only be part of the fence, but from the outside, it would be a full height fence, TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It would be enclosed. MS. MOORE: If you were to pick a topography at like level 28, topographic line 28. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just seaward because the retaining wall is going to be rebuilt, correct? 7O Board of Trustees 7 ! April 20, 2005 MS. MOORE: Correct. So that would be 32? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 34, 36, 38. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Back it right up. MS. MOORE: I don't think they're going to like the idea, as long as they don't see it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no. MS. MOORE: Oh, the short one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's going to extend behind that retaining wall, so visually it's going to be the same. MR. ARM: If we put the railing in front we would visually have to hide the top two, two and-a-half feet, whatever. MS. MOORE: I don't know what the Kofinases would say to that. We can talk to Mr. and Mrs. Kofinas. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's not like you're losing -- MS. MOORE: What we can do is have this approved conditioned on that, if it's a problem we'll come back and amend the permit, so that it enables them to move forward. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay, could you come up here and take a look? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments? MR. MCGREEVY: Condition a dry well installed to contain pool backwash. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit to renovate the existing residence, construct a second floor addition, install an in-ground swimming pool with dry wells for the backwash of the swimming pool and pavilion. I also see that the letter includes gutters and dry wells, hay bales with a silt barrier and on the condition that -- and approve it so that the wire fence will be brought up to the top of the bluff. MS. MOORE: Can we just say a fence that complies with the code requirements on pool enclosure? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, that fence. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Bring in a new plan. 24. Patdcia C. Moore on behalf of NORMAN & JUDITH SHAPP requests a Wetland Permit for the existing docking facility, consisting of a 3' by 30' timber dock, 3' by 12' ramp and a 6' by 16' float. Located: 485 Orchard Way, Southold. SCTM#89-2-7 71 Board of Trustees 72 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of applicant? MS. MOORE: I have for you copy of the order that was put in for Peat and Son Corp. in Westhampton for the two types of shrubs or the two types of plantings that have been agreed to. I have that here tonight. We put in that order. I had submitted to the Trustees an offer in compromise, which I'm prepared to sign, we would have had it prepared earlier but we were kind of waiting to see when the plans might be available. So we put the order in. Doroski's Nursery has given us a proposal, the Board has approved that proposal, and we're prepared to proceed as soon as the plans come in with the proposal and there was a two week wait, they had 500 of the Iow bush blueberries, but they didn't have the others and rather complicate things, Heather and I agreed we'll just keep it the way it was proposed with half and half. That's what we have agreed to. I don't know, at this point do you want me to sign the Southold Town Trustees offer in compromise? It does provide for in the event that we close title before the planting is completed that I will hold back in escrow to insure the completion. I want to make sure Mr. Doroski is paid, everybody's paid since he was kind enough to come in and give us a proposal. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Just one comment on this application, the CAC recommends disapproving because the existing docking facility doesn't match the submitted plans. MS. MOORE: We talked about it last time, I actually did a plan specifically for that dock. So that plan was drawn by Sea Level Mapping because there wasn't a good enough drawing it was only hand drawings from prior owners. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I thought we measured that on site. MS. MOORE: Yes, and you confirmed. It was all popped up, so it could have been a difficult thing to measure. But I can assure you as an officer of the court, I had that plan done specifically for that dock. So my client actually paid for the drawing. MR. MCGREEVY: The drawing didn't match the actual dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm looking for the drawing. MS. MOORE: I executed the offer and compromise and I attached the order of Peat and Son. MS. MOORE: Sea Level Mapping generally does very good plans so I can't imagine it not being accurate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It looks good. MR. MCGREEVY: The designer's drawing that was on our application on inspection of the actual dock, it did not match. 72 Board of Trustees 73 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Because we did measure, we always measure. MR. MCGREEVY: If I'm not mistaken, I think in the drawing there was an extra piling, which on that catwalk, if I recall because that goes back a ways. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Doesn't show any pilings. MS. MOORE: I don't have any piles on here. There's one attaching the existing float. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's one in the cross section, is that it, the piling? MR. MCGREEVY: Supporting the catwalk? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, supporting the float. MR. JOHNSTON: The cost of the 500 plants is going to be $4,000, Doroski's proposal is for $13,000, I want to know what the other $9,000 is for. Are they charging $9,000 to put it in the ground? MS. MOORE: No, actually the $13,000 was for them to purchase the plants. My client went directly to Westhampton, which is where they got the plants before, and Doroski worked out an arrangement where installation is going to be $5,000 and the plants are -- I just have the proposal today. MR. JOHNSTON: So they saved $4,000 by making a telephone call? MS. MOORE: You got it. But I'm willing to escrow the amount that's required. I'll escrow the $13,000 to cover my exorbitant legal fees if they don't do the work. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So they found the planting material in Westhampton? MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? MR. NICHOLS: John Nichols, Junior, I also represent the Shapps, I'm the real estate broker, and I just want to ask for support of this permit. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve the request for the docking facility as we have straightened out those dimensions with the condition that the planting be done and inspected and then the permit will be released. MS. MOORE: No. That's what the escrow's for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'm not -- anyway, I'm not interested in escrow, I want to see it planted. There's no point in escrow if the plants are in Westhampton and they can just plant them. 73 Board of Trustees 74 April 20, 2005 MS. MOORE: Understand, we have a contract application. Our buyer is going to force us to plant the plants, and he won't close without a permit. That's why I'm holding back more than what you see is required to assure that it's going to be planted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All he has to do is plant it. MS. MOORE: But the plants aren't going to be here for two weeks and Doroski has to get his men out there. I anticipate it will be done within the next month. But the whole purpose of having it accomplished today, and my client's willingness to do it despite other objections, is so we can get the permit so we can close. We are unable to close out without the dock permit in hand. Why have an escrow, why have all this process if you're not willing to release the dock permit. Why in good faith would we -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is not about good faith. Because when we first issued a permit to the Shapps for a nondisturbance buffer, they went out and they destroyed the nondisturbance buffer. And then when they got a violation and they replanted it and we showed in the record that it was replanted, we went out again this year, and it's gone again. MS. MOORE: I would respectfully disagree that, in fact, the first time the violation occurred was a landscaper that went beyond the hay bale line. It wasn't a clearing of the property, the property had been cleared by two owners prior to the Shapps. So they came in and they did a landscape plan because it was the more efficient way of handling it rather than going through the trial and having the Town prove the fact that somebody did something wrong. We got that permit, you inspected it, the plants were there. My client tells me the plants are still there. The real estate broker says the weeds were there last year. At this point the weeds are going to start growing. At the time you inspected last month, the property is dormant. They have not cleared, they have not cut the grass. In fact, they want to sell the property because they can't enjoy the back of their property. They have done everything humanly possible to keep this Board happy, and you keep blaming them for things they don't do. If you're going to hold up our closing, then we'll withdraw everything, then you go to trial and prove this case because I'm going to have real estate brokers testify that they did not clear. I'm going to have my client testify that they did not clear. And you're going to have to establish has there been clearing or hasn't there been. The whole purpose of doing it tonight 74 Board of Trustees 75 April 20, 2005 and giving you the consent, giving you in writing representations, I as an attorney have to hold back escrow, we cannot schedule a closing without the dock permit; that's a condition of our contract. And I can't fome the seller to close until I have that dock permit in hand. Why an escrow? Why have my client pay $5,000 more than it really will cost? That's an extra guarantee. Believe me, they're going to try and get this done as soon as possible because it's in their best interest. The buyer's going to want us to do it. They don't want anybody with anything over their shoulders. We're doing our best to accomplish everything, but all the negotiations up until now have been with the understanding that the dock permit would be issued tonight, and that has been our emphasis on trying to get this resolved. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What negotiations? MS. MOORE: I've been negotiating with staff people since day one to try and resolve this because otherwise we were going to end up in a court, and you were going to have to prove things that would end up delaying the whole process. If we end up losing our contract, believe me my client will have an action against the Town because there is no proof so far that they have done anything. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well then who did the clearing? MS. MOORE: There has been no clearing. That's precisely the point. If you take a rake, you're going to find mulch and you're going to find the plants that have been planted and have been there planted for two years. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And they're this big after two years? MS. MOORE: When you can't fertilize and you can barely weed, the plants do not grow to any kind of satisfaction. The plants that you recommended, there's not the soil consistency, you have an area that doesn't grew very well, you have mulch on top of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were out there. Everything is a uniform height. The whole nondisturbance buffer is a whole uniform site. Don't you think after two years everything would have grown? MS. MOORE: If you go out in August, of course, but in two years it doesn't grow. When you have small plants, they don't generate, they don't thrive, but the plants are there. If you were to dig under all of the activity, all of the leaves, you'd find the plants there. It's very insulting to somebody who went and planted, had the Town inspect to verify that it was planted, has a record of that whole thing in your file, and then be told that they didn't plant or 75 Board of Trustees 76 April 20, 2005 that they took out the plants. Why would it make sense to have somebody take out the plants that they planted; that makes absolutely no sense. And the real estate broker was going to look in their files to see if they had pictures of the back of the property. My client's mother passed away and they're in Florida, and they can't be here tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just one Board member. I made a resolution and there's no guarantee I'm going to get it approved. MS. MOORE: I would ask the rest of the Board in good faith, given all the negotiations and the guarantees that you have in your file we get a permit so we can move forward and close on our property. MS. TETRAULT: The plants that were proposed and planted before were five gallon size blueberry, that's pretty big. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Also black cherry? MS. MOORE: That's not black cherry planted. There were never black cherry planted. Those were options that Chris Pickerell had given an option to the client of three different plants. They didn't plant any black cherry. The blueberry were not five gallon containers. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyway, I have made a motion and the motion actually guarantees the applicant a dock. MS. TETRAULT: Would the buyer at the closing accept a letter that says you will get your dock permit as soon as -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why not? MS. MOORE: I have William Price is the attorney on the other side who tells me without a dock permit, he will not schedule a closing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh What's the problem? I made a motion to guarantee the applicant a dock. MS. MOORE: But you're not releasing the permit. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a second? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It guarantees you a permit MS. MOORE: I hope he'll accept that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's guaranteed. MS. MOORE: This was all guaranteed, my representations, my signings are all guaranteed, and here I am saying what happens to the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's right here waiting for you. MS. MOORE: But you don't release it until the planting OCCURS. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh The planting plan was submitted, the 76 Board of Trustees 77 April 20, 2005 planting plan was approved so we could have a public hearing an approve a dock permit. MS. MOORE: But plants aren't available. I understand that. If you had been willing to or the suggestion was that all the plants would be the blueberries, we would be able to get all of them as once. But we chose not to complicate your lives by giving you the proposal that was originally given. 25. Patricia C. Moore on behalf of MATT-A-MAR BY THE BAY, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct boat racks and a parking area. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. SCTM#117-8-18. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? MS. MOORE: I understand you want us to stake the racks, which we'll stake the corners so you can see precisely where the development is occurring? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. MS. TETRAULT: And something that shows the height too. MS. MOORE: You have the cross-section, this is a principal use, the Zoning code allows us to go to 35 feet from the racks this is the maximum they will go, so 35 feet is a house size. As a principal use, that's all I can tell you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I think we wanted something visual, instead of-- MS. MOORE: I don't know how to put a pole in the air that is 35 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The proposal for a boat rack is 35 feet. MS. MOORE: The proposal is for a boat rack, we'd be happy to put up several of them. That would show you exactly the height. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's hard to visualize. TRUSTEE KING: What is the height of the existing building? MR. RAYNOR: Michael Raynor, the existing building is two stories high. I want to say it's about 28. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Could you tack a lath on the top? MR. RAYNOR: But is it the Trustees concern? I think it's a Planning Board and also a Building Department issue with height. TRUSTEE FOSTER: I think you're right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aesthetics. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's covered you under our code. MS. MOORE: Height of structure? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Visual. 77 Board of Trustees 78 April 20, 2005 MR. RAYNOR: You've got Port Egypt, that's got them, New Suffolk Shipyard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thirty-five feet? MR. RAYNQR: They're built. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's Strong's? MS. MOORE: They should be 35 to code. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Thirty-five is maximum height for anything, other than radio transmission or something like that. MS. MOORE: I want to put in your file -- when was this photograph taken? MR. RAYNOR: '70s. MS. MOORE: We have a photograph that Michael got from his dad's files, it's an aerial photograph of the shipyard, and you can see the number of buildings, ships that are there. I think historically you know the activities that were occurring there. But for the record for your file here's a photograph that cleady shows the intensity of that site (handing). They're dry rack boat racks that every marina has. As you know, they are the preferred method of boat storage by the DEC. The DEC doesn't encourage any further intensification of the in-water boats, so racks are the alternative. I'm sure there's going to be lots of comments tonight. So I'll step aside unless you have a particular question. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not at the moment, thanks. MS. MOORE: We've seen those letters. They have been generated to the Planning Board and any Board that has review. This application, the process that we have with respect to the development of this property, the Building Department has recognized that this is a permitted primary use. We are obligated to go for site plan approval, and the Trustees jurisdiction within '100 feet, there is some activity with respect to the parking areas, the resurfacing of parking areas, but I believe all the racks are actually beyond 100 feet jurisdiction. It's hard to tell from this site plan, I will have the site plan measured, but the water is here. (Discussion.) This is the site plan the Planning Board's reviewing. We have drainage for all the runoff based on the crushed stone. MR. RAYNOR: Everything is RCAA. MS. MOORE: The racks and the boats, it's not roofed over. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are there any plans to enclose this? MS. MOORE: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Let's hear other comments. Can you get us a copy of this? MS. MOORE: Sure. 78 Board of Trustees 79 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Would anyone else like to speak? MS. GRANT: Good evening, I'm Lauren Grant, president of the New Suffolk Civic Association. I have a letter which I would like to read to you. "Dear Mr. Krupski and Members of the Board of Trustees, I am writing on behalf of the New Suffolk Civic Association regarding the proposed installation of 17 boat storage racks in New Suffolk by Matt-a-Mar on the Bay. In addition to the boat storage racks, Matt-a-Mar also wants to create 185 parking spaces to accommodate those people storing their boats. Matt-a-Mar's proposal is not in keeping with the area as to almost be laughable. This project would seriously affect an area that typifies and defines the hamlet of New Suffolk. "In reviewing the plans of Matt-a-Mar on the Bay there are many negatives, and, as far as our association is concerned, no positive reasons to allow this installation to take place. Yes, we want to have a marina in New Suffolk, yes, we want to have a restaurant as part of that marina. However, both should be small and should allow growth in such a way that would not have a severe impact on the bay, the land and would not obliterate the hamlet scenic waterfront. "The way the current proposal stands the 153 boats and 185 cars would impact the bay and bay bottom. Installation of the racks would disrupt the land that has never undergone an environmental clean up to rid it of contaminants. There is no mention in the proposal of a pump-out facility and sanitary facilities. The danger to the public and to the cars parked under the boat racks and in other places in that particular area as fork lifts go about hauling boats in and out is incomprehensible. We as a civic association charged with the promoting the betterment of our community feel that the people of Matt-a-Mar have no regard for the fragile nature of the New Suffolk waterfront as clearly demonstrated by the topping they put down in the boat storage areas bordering the waterfront. The materials used were discarded road surfacing taken up along Route 25 when it was resurfaced last fall. This in addition to the existing contaminants on that land is what is now flowing into the bay whenever it rains. Is this a responsible action? We think not. "We would welcome any opportunity available to us to work with you as Trustees for the Town and with the people from Matt-a-Mar in trying to find an amicable solution to revitalizing the New Suffolk waterfront area. "Sincerely, Lauren Grant, President of the New 79 Board of Trustees 80 April 20, 2005 Suffolk Civic Association." TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, anyone else? MR. SIMON: Michael Simon, New Suffolk. Just a few points based on the application itself. When one looks at this application one wonders why this application is before this Board because the question to whether this involves whether it is within 100 feet of proposed -- where the wetlands are one within 100 feet, the answer is no clearly no. Clearly we're here because the answer to that question is yes. Does the project involve excavation or filling? Unless these three-story boat racks are going to rest just plain on the surface with no footings whatsoever the answer to that question is, no, that the project involved does not involve excavation or filling is also clearly false. I think it's clear that some work underneath the surface is going to be required. When one starts working on that surface there is reason to believe and there are historical documents that we can produce suggesting that there are serious problems underneath the ground in that area having to do with 19th Century activity involving oil and general problems that's part of the history and the various attempts to try to develop that property. Finally, the question of describe the nature of environmental impacts, it says no; boat storage is an existing use. That is strictly speaking true. There are boats, there are cradles there. Boats actually floated off those cradles during the last major nor'easter about ten years ago. We're not talking about one level boat with shrink wrap over them. We're talking about three levels and cars parked underneath, as I understand the plan, and the boats will presumably be secured. I don't know what the measurements were, I was told that 35 feet goes to the top of the structure and doesn't include the boats. But I also understand from the code that if anything is secured to the top of the rack and it goes over 35 feet, that will be a problem. I recognize that height, although it's required in the code, it's not strictly part of the purview of the Trustees. Nevertheless, there are problems of this sort and others that I think other people have pointed out in letters that are certainly worthy of the Board's attention. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. MR. SCHULTHEIS: Good evening, I'm Jerry Schultheis from New Suffolk. I have a couple comments I'd like to make. First one is I don't even understand why we're having this meeting. Chapter 58 of the Town code requires that there be a posting of a sign seven days prior to the hearing. On 80 Board of Trustees 81 April20,2005 last Thursday I went around the entire site, there was no sign. There are other people that have looked for that sign, there has been no sign. There's no evidence of any sign until, my understanding, just yesterday. So there was never an official posting of a sign as required by the Town code in Chapter 58. So therefore there shouldn't even be a hearing right now because the necessary preliminary work has not been done. Also, mention was made of the asphalt which is spread all over that entire property. My understanding is that for any material to be placed on a waterfront lot, that at least an administrative permit is required. I have no -- there's no evidence of any permit ever being given for that asphalt, that ground up asphalt to be placed over that entire lot. In my opinion that leaves that particular parcel in violation because things were done that didn't have a permit. So there's a violation there that needs to be remedied, and there was never an official posting of the hearing as required by Chapter 58. Going further into the whole project, recently there was the hamlet study that was done by the Town of Southold, that particular parcel is within the hamlet district, and clearly the scope of the project doesn't conform to that hamlet plan. In early 2004, when the Trustees adopted the new Chapter 97, there was a prelude to the chapter that was on the internet site, and it referenced certain things that the Trustees that they said they would like to enforce. Specific quotes from that was that "there's a rich heritage of scenic historic and natural resources in the town." The entire Route 25 corridor has been designated a scenic corridor by the state; that goes from the bay to the sound. There's a strong scenic heritage in the town and clearly a 34 foot high, three-story boat rack with car parking under it is not a scenic thing to behold. Talk about protection of the environment, there are environmental hazards at that particular plot right now. We're talking about rack storage for boat. I personally work in a marina, and if you look at a boat, a boat in the bilge you have oil that accumulates, battery acid, transmission fluid, you have water. Typically when that boat comes out of the water the drain plug is removed and all that toxic cocktail pours all over the ground and is transported wherever that boat goes. In some cases people, if the plug is not removed, the bilge pump as rainwater 8l Board of Trustees 82 April 20, 2005 fills it up will pump that same toxic mixture all over the ground, not only that it's going to pump it on the cars that are parked underneath there. The parcel in question does have significant historical value. The Town of Southold has the list of historic documents, included on that particular parcel is Houston's barn, the intent is to destroy that parcel, remove that building completely. The original Galley Ho restaurant is on that list; the original site of the post office, which is no longer there, is there, and that's the first submarine base in the country. All this history will be lost forever. We're talking about these racks being able to handle a 15,800 pound boat. When you consider the weight of the boat and you consider the weight of that forklift which is going to carry it, that's a significant weight. I have personally observed a forklift carrying a 10,000 pound boat go over an asphalt pavement and the pavement actually deflects under the weight of that boat. Right now the operation down there, there's a travel lift and that travel lift actually travels on Main Street, which is the town road, comes up the First Street and comes over First Street and then retrieves boats, brings it back to First Street, brings it down to Main Street. With that much weight, with the forklift and the weight of the boat, it's going to do severe damage to the roads in that particular area. There was previous mention that there's no facility for the waste generated by the people using the boat, for the garbage, people coming off the boat. There's a lot of people that's going to be using the boats, and there's no provisions for waste, no pump-out facilities that have been taken care of in any of the plans. The application claimed that the proposal use is incompatible with the adjoining area. There are no boat racks in the adjoining area. It's quite contrary to the existing use in the area. A 34 foot high rack will severely limit the scenic views of New Suffolk. That New Suffolk has a maritime heritage, and that particular parcel is key to it. It's got a lot of history to it, and it's something that really needs to be preserved. In summary, I think the project is out of character with the neighborhood. It's not consistent with the goals of the state, (inaudible) or hamlet study. It will ruin the scenic values. The signage from the hearing as not posted as required by Town code. The entire project is contrary to the goals and objectives to 82 Board of Trustees 83 April 20, 2005 the new Chapter 97 of the Town code. History and historical structures will be destroyed. The downtown infrastructure will be destroyed. It will have a harmful effect on the environment. The increased parking and traffic will be inconsistent with the rural existing character. It will be a destruction of the idyllic character of New Suffolk. Lack of waste disposal facilities and there's no plan to remedy the existing toxic conditions that exist on that site. And foremost is the fact that since the required posting wasn't done as per Chapter 58, I don't see how the hearing is even progressing at this point in time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well, I'll address the posting before I take any other comments. I honestly didn't see any posting, but I honestly didn't look for any posting. It could have been. I don't know if any other Board member looked. We knew where we were going, we didn't look. So, I don't know if anybody else. MR. MCGREEVY: I looked and I couldn't find it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I made no effort. MR. RAYNOR: The posting was put right at the gate where you come at the stop sign, while you were up, it's a sailboat, 36 foot Freedom. Then the second time I posted it because that disappeared was right on the south -- north side of the south lot where the fencing is, and it's right in the middle. MS. MOORE: You swear, in fact, you provided an affidavit for your file that he posted it. We got a phone call that it wasn't found or it blew away and he went out and did it again. We actually posted it twice. We also sent certified letters as required, and you have a copy of our list of property owners for certifications. So we posted. MR. SCHULTHEiS: We just heard evidence that they posted one sign, it disappeared, they posted another sign. I'm going to read specifically from Chapter 58, it said, "The applicant or petitioner is required to erect a sign provided by the Town which shall be prominently displayed on the premises facing each public or private street which the property involved in the application or petition abuts." You've got Main Street, the lots on either side of that, you've got First Street, you got the lot on one side of First Street, you got the lot on the other side of First Street. Clearly their testimony said they put one sign up. At the minimum there's got to be four signs posted for that to conform to the Town code. MS. MOORE: It's a moot point because anybody that's objecting to posting that's here waives the objection to 83 Board of Trustees 84 April 20, 2005 posting by their appearance. Secondly, this is going to be a continued hearing and if you would like us to post it again before the next hearing, we will make that available, we'll do that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That was my suggestion. The posting is almost a moot point because we're going to be back here next month. We're going to ask the applicant to repost it. AUDIENCE MEMBER: We have photographs. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: As per Chapter 58 that it be posted property. It will be for next month. MS. MOORE: If we could ask the Trustees to do however number prints we need. We'll put up as many as you like. We'll plaster the entire property with posters, but they will complain because we'll be in violation of the sign ordinance. MR. SCHULTHEIS: The other issue is the ground up asphalt that was placed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to have it staked for next month. We're going to look at that issue. That's something that we didn't see. MS. MOORE: Keeping in mind it's been an existing shipyard. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Honestly, we didn't scrutinize that property that much because it wasn't staked. MS. MOORE: It's a large piece of property, that's fine, we'll stake it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I'll take any other comments. MS. ROBBINS: I'm Carolyn Robbins from New Suffolk. I was the chairperson of the New Suffolk Stakeholders who reported recently to the Town, and I would ask you to include in your considerations of this proposal recommendations of that hamlet study and include that hamlet study in your record. I have a copy of the summary which I will bring up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. ROBBINS: Chief among the stake holders' recommendations for that property is enforcement of the local waterfront revitalization program, now Town law. Among its provisions pertaining to this property is the following: Redevelopment action in that area should seek to maintain the marine-related character of the New Suffolk waterfront and the continuance of water dependent uses, but on a scale appropriate to the community, which this is not. And the high degree of environmental sensitivity, not to mention the unique historic character of the New Suffolk area in general highlights the need for careful and limited redevelopment. The plan proposed by Matt-a-Mar on the Bay 84 Board of Trustees 85 April 20, 2005 for boat racks 34 feet high for 153 boats and 195 cars does not constitute careful and limited redevelopment, and it is certainly not at a scale appropriate to the community. Construction would overwhelm the hamlet center, destroy any semblance of historic ambiance, block our scenic waterfront views and create hazards for any pedestrians on the small side or the adjacent street. And the noise of that forklift running back and forth beep, beep, beep at all hours and the stench of the fumes from motors and bilges would render the center of the hamlet offensive to residents and visitors alike, including patrons of a popular restaurant and gift shop. As we have said, there has been no environmental clean-up of over 115 years of accumulation in the soil and the bay bottom of hazardous and toxic materials, not just the 19th but all of the 20th Century. There has to be clean-up before a spade is turned for any purpose. A thorough and current environmental study is essential for any redevelopment plan requiring a positive SEQRA declaration by the lead agency, whichever that may be. And for the Board's information, the Planning Board as of April 8th had 44 letters from New Suffolk residents opposing the boat rack plan, plus letters from the Civic Association and from the North Fork Environmental Council, and I have a copy of that letter. There was no notice whatsoever on that property and several of us looked repeatedly, and walked around it. On the 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th of April as late as 2:30 in the afternoon yesterday. At 7:00 a.m. there was a piece of white paper on the north side of the south property parked way down where nobody walks. And it may be that we are here tonight, but not everybody in New Suffolk is here tonight, and not everybody has the opportunity to know about this hearing or to make public comment. In addition, I have a letter from Diane Harkoff, the co-owner of Legends, she was unable to be here tonight. Would I be allowed to read it for her?. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's already been in the file. We've all read it. MS. ROBBINS: I hope you will particularly note the second page. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We will review all these letters, believe me. MS. ROBBINS: Here's another copy of ours (handing). MS. MOORE: If we could get a copy of that particular letter. The Legends, they have been a tenant of ours. 85 Board of Trustees 86 April 20, 2005 MR. JOHNSTON: They will be available tomorrow to FOIA. MS. MCINTYRE: I'm Pat Mclntyre from New Suffolk. Personally after being told last Friday that the signs were not up, I made sure I check. I walk the town all the time so I didn't do it by car, walked the property line all the way down to the dead end and back. At Saturday the 16th at 12:15 no signs, Monday the 18th and Monday morning we heard from Joan Robbins that she called the Trustees office, and they said that it was being reposted according to what Miss Moore said. So I made sure that I went down. I work from home so every couple of hours I took off and went down and quickly checked. So I checked at 10:00 and at 12:15 and at 4:00 and 6:00 on Monday expecting to'see it up there. I again checked on Tuesday at 8:00 and 10:30 and 12:00, and 2:00 yesterday. Nothing was up there at 2:00 yesterday. This morning I went at 7:00 a.m. and I did see a sign, the one sign that was just referred to, which means it was someplace between 2:00 yesterday afternoon and 8:00 this morning it went up. And those signs, if you recall, say if you have an interest in this to please come to Town Hall the day before the hearing, the records will be available to you between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. So the maximum opportunity somebody in New Suffolk had to possibly get to the files was two hours, that's by what I saw. I also took some pictures this morning. My camera does not date these items, but you can see because we have had such perfect weather, this is the first cloudy day. So you can see this was this morning. This is a picture that I'll submit which is on First Street. I stood at the north end of the property, which is in front of Laura Avin's house looking along the line so you can see early in the morning there's no sign posted on that front. That truck was there so I made sure I took another picture standing in front of Legends, that's the same truck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're going to have this posted by next week. MS. MCINTYRE: Perhaps I could put this in the file for now? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MS. MCINTYRE: Perhaps if it happened a Monday we reported it Friday to the Board and it never happened all weekend. This is across from the post office on the south side of Main Street, and here I am; this is First Street I'm on Main standing west of First, nobody goes down it's dead end, takes the turn. It not even where you might pass it, it's down below that point. I'm now on the dead end on the sidewalk looking over, you can see it. I thought it was a 86 Board of Trustees 87 April 20, 2005 piece of paper. I was looking, if I was not seeking this, I wouldn't have noticed. It looked like a piece of paper blowing up against the fence. There it is close up, it's taped to the fence with some tape you might send a package with. I'd like to put these in the file. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Any other comment? MR. SAMUELS: Good evening, my name is Tom Samuels. I live in New Suffolk, thank you guys for being so patient here tonight, long hearing I know and most of them you're looking at little residential things and buffers and plants and how simple those seem compared to the concentration of this many boats on the site. Although they're high and dry, they're going to be in the bay and any impact they have is going to be in the water just the same as if they were docked in the water. So please, consider that the impact is just as great as if they were slips in the bay I would say. I mean there are other impacts too I would say. Very concentrated contaminants potentially in the site. It's a very concentrated development on what's a relatively small site. I don't see any reference to buffers. You were talking before about buffers as if they're going to make all the difference in the world and maybe they will, in which case we should have some pretty significant buffers here. There is a question about the sanitary facilities, I know it's not in your jurisdiction to decide whether there should be any sanitary facilities, but I think you can by common sense deduct that people getting off a boat after sitting out in the bay for four or five hours are going to need sanitary facilities and for them not to be provided on the site, while it's not potentially presumably in your jurisdiction, I think by common sense it's clear that they're needed. And if they're not provided I suppose people will find the nearest shrub, which won't be in the buffer which it doesn't exist. But they'll probably go to the restaurant which has an eight foot ring in the ground and probably gets pumped out every three or four weeks in the summer time when the restaurant is open. It seems like there ought to be a pump-out facility. I don't know what the rule is on that, I haven't researched it. I guess that's something you guys know about. It seems to me also although this is an application for a boat rack facility that there must be other intentions on the site, after all the bulkheads are practically nonexistent. It's completely derelict as far as marine construction is concerned, and so I think you should assume that you'll see these people back again really soon. So you might save yourself some time by 87 Board of Trustees 88 April 20, 2005 asking what they actually have in mind for the long term. Aesthetically speaking, it is in your jurisdiction to consider that, and I think if you want to know what one 35 foot boat rack system looks like, go to Port of Egypt on Main Road and you can see it in all of its glory, that is 35 feet. This will be 35 feet. That is enclosed, you may see that in the future too, a desire to enclose this structure, but at that point it won't matter because it's already there. But if you want to see it, that's pretty clear what it looks like. Aesthetics is in your jurisdiction. Water quality is in your jurisdiction. The entire site within 100 feet of wetlands is your jurisdiction. Sol hope you'll act for the best interest of your jurisdiction. Thank you very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Anyone else? MR. BAKER: I'm Jim Baker, New Suffolk, I didn't recall seeing any plans for a fueling facility associated with this, is that -- okay. Then I think you need to consider an impact of an adjacent fueling facility at the New Suffolk Shipyard and School House Creek of 153 boats, granted not all at once, but attempting to gain fuel; that will significantly increase the load, the traffic the disturbance of School House Creek and so on, as these boats leave the dock area and go and get fuel. It's a scope issue. I believe School House Creek should be included in the scope of the environmental impact of this facility. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Thank you. Anybody else? I had a couple of questions. We do have to coordinate this review with the Planning Board, presumably with the DEC; would it be better to set up a joint meeting at least, the very least with the Planning Board? Because otherwise we're going to say something then a month later they're going to say something, and then they're going to say something. It's just going to go back and forth and then two months later the DEC's -- MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. I like that. That's a very good idea. Who would you like to coordinate that meeting? Do you want to do it with the Boards or staff level; how would you like to do it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we have to do it with everyone first, and get all the concerns out there, and at some point the staff could take over and work out a lot of details. I think one big meeting would be advantageous first. MS. MOORE: We'll make ourselves available. We're not opposed to that, to make the process move more smoothly. At this point, boat racks, they are what they are; and as I said, this site has been an aggressively used commercial site for decades. The condition of the property, the way it 88 Board of Trustees 89 April 20, 2005 is now is because the property isn't generating sufficient income to reinvest in the site. This will at least enable the property owner to generate some income so he can reinvest it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We know it's zoned for marine use, and it's had historic marine use there. But we have questions, one of which was just brought up, which we were going to ask is about the existing marina; what are the intentions there? When you start putting boats in the water, how are you going to handle boats going out, somebody forgot their lunch, they're going to come back in, you're going to have to have space there. MS. MOORE: Are you ready to answer that now? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Not now. But these are some of the things we're concerned about traffic flow in the water, because the Planning Board is going to ask you traffic flow on the land, but we're concerned about traffic flow in the water. MS. MOORE: At the meeting we'll talk about it, we have some designated spaces for the restaurant, some designated restaurant separate for rental and those spaces that are related to this use. So it has been thought out, there is an effort to coordinate the marina slips that are there and designate them for -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Or reconfigure them? We don't have a problem with reconfiguring them there. MS. MOORE: If you get the DEC on Board with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's sort of an existing facility. I don't think they would care if you moved some things around. MS. MOORE: If you can persuade them, we'd be willing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's also a pump-out station? MR. RAYNOR: There's two pump-out stations, one is in New Suffolk Shipyard, which is fully capable, and also Cutchogue Harbor. If it's regarding putting in a pump-out station, I'd be more than happy to look into it for you. We also have a pump-out station, which is portable at our Mattituck facility, which I can bring back and forth without a problem. It's on a regular skid loaded on the back of a pick-up truck and shoot it down there to pump everything out. Regarding the toxins that they're talking about that are supposedly in the property, I can tell you that a bank would not give me a loan on that piece of property if there was toxics in there. Along with having a Phase 2 done on that property the property is completely clean. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh That's more Planning Board issue. We're more concerned about what could be put in there, not about 89 Board of Trustees 90 April 20, 2005 what's there. I suppose it's a concern. I don't know that anyone's ever mentioned it to us though. MR. RAYNOR: All we found was oyster shells when we went down to pull samples. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think it would be better if we set the next meeting up with the Planning Board, get the DEC out here kind of make a coordinated effort. MS. MOORE: Are you going to put this on for the next Board meeting or do you want to try to do it earlier?. What, a separate, designated date for a coordinated meeting? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that's the best way to do it, yes. MR. POLACHEK: Just a quick comment. My name is Joe Polachek. I grew up basically from the time I was a year and-a-half old in New Suffolk. I worked in the New Suffolk Shipyard, or the North Fork Shipyard prior to their ownership. My one question again, I don't know if it's in your purview, would be the hours of operation. I would assume that high and dry these people would love to have their boats in the water at 5:00 in the morning if they are inveterate fishermen, and I sure wouldn't like to hear a diesel screaming in my backyard taking boats out of a rack to put them in the water for customers or at 9:00 or 10:00 at night on the reverse trip. And to the toxic issue, I sincerely hope that the DEC or whatever documentation they have is totally legitimate, because if it is, they are extremely lucky. I worked there as a kid. I grew up with his dad, and ~ dumped plenty of toxic garbage there, ignorance, typical, take the oil, dump it out in back of the shed, take the paint solvents dump it, do whatever. If there's nothing left there so be it, but I'd like to see proof of that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This process includes, the review process includes the public, it's not like we meet and make a deal and go home. I think it would be better than trying to do it in this kind of forum. We still have quite a bit of agenda left here. MS. MOORE: We can talk about the hours of operation when we meet with the Planning Board, that's more of a site plan issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are a lot of concerns. We're going to have it posted for next month. MS. MOORE: Do you want it posted for a next standard meeting, or do you want to have a separate meeting which I will post for that particular meeting? Keep in mind I sent out certified mailings to everyone for this meeting. MR. JOHNSTON: Al, I find it hard to believe that somebody 90 Board of Trustees 91 April 20, 2005 goes out every 15 minutes to see whether there's a sign up, and then says they don't know about the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You don't know New Suffolk. MR. JOHNSTON: I would think somebody knew there was a hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We'll try to work out something. TRUSTEE FOSTER: You all have to promise not to take the signs down. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll be there on the 11th for our field inspection, May 11th, and we'll try to set up something with the Planning Board right after that. I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. 26. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, on behalf of MONICA KREISCHER requests a Wetland Permit to replace/reconstruct the existing timber bulkhead located within the northern section of the subject property with a vinyl sheathed bulkhead. Located: 825 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. SCTM# 71-2-16. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. This is very straightforward. I want to hand you up a revised plan and also a letter from the Harbor Lights Property Owners Association. If you look at the northern return on this it extends onto their property. They have given us their support on this application, to let us know that that work can be done (handing). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments? All in-kind/in-place? MR. ANDERSON: I want to leave the existing thing so it doesn't collapse into the bay, probably remove the exterior piles and put it right up against it. It should be with in 12 inches probably more like 6". TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Four probably. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: CAC recommends approval with the condition of a 50 foot non-turf buffer. MR. ANDERSON: If you get onto the site, the turf in front of it is mostly sand and mowed weeds. I don't think there's need for that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Looks like all sand. 9l Board of Trustees 92 April 20, 2005 MR. ANDERSON: It's not like we're going to do anything. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 20 foot non-turf. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine, I just don't see the point of it. Also the top of the bulkhead is hard on the land. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. Any other Board comments? If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of MONICA KREISCHER as written with the 20 foot non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: All in favor? ALL AYES. 27 Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of SIM MOY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious driveway, retaining wall and sanitary system. Located: 750 West Lake Road, Southold. SCTM# 90-2-1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, Sim Moy. This property is a small property off the end of a right of way that extends off West Lake Drive in Cedar Beach. I know you have been to the site. It's a property that's bulkheaded on two sides, really almost three sides; that bulkheading was done some time ago. There's a creek that comes in to the north of the property, it extends east, and along that small stretch of creek there's an unbulkheaded section of tidal wetlands consisting of, the way we flagged it it's mostly phragmite and grousle bush, and it's very clear where the lawn ends and the wetlands begins, but there's a right of way that brings you to the site. This property is a building lot, it's been held in single and separate ownership and protected for that purpose. The adjacent property is owned by Di Moy, Sim Moy is his wife, and the purpose of this application is they wish to build a small house for their kids. The way this was laid out was obviously we are dealing with a small lot here. So we proposed basically a 1,000 square foot house with a small wraparound deck. The house would contain three bedrooms and the septic system that you see to the north of the house is actually the minimum septic system required possible under the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. It would be suitably raised above 92 Board of Trustees 93 April 20, 2005 groundwater, and in order to do that there's a need to build a retaining wall that encircles the septic system, and the distances between the rings and the house and the rings and the wall, and the septic system and the house and the septic system in the walls all meet the code of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. We had thought that we should have some sort of parking area, so the most sensible place to put that was on the western side of the property. The property benefits from public water as well. What I have explained to Mr. Moy is that even though he has maintained this as a separate building lot since its inception and that there is an inherent right to build on this, is that it will be difficult because it will require multiple variances. We need a permit from this Board, and we need to get a permit from the DEC. We need to get a permit from the Health Department, we're going to need a Zoning Board relief then finally a building permit. We have made a design choice to put the septic system where it is. Generally speaking when you're on the southern edges, southern portion of the town your groundwater flow is expected to flow toward the south to the bay. The divide has been generally shown to be at the North Road. So we felt that the septic system should go on the north side of the house. We also feel that it can go there because that's where it's readily accessible in the event it has to be serviced. The relief sought here is basically based on the size of the lot, and it's true for every other agency. So, for example, we would need the Zoning variance because it would be impossible to be 75 feet back from the bulkhead. We would need a variance from the Health Department because it would be impossible to site a septic system more than 100 feet from surface waters. We would need a variance from the DEC because it would be impossible to locate either a house in a conforming location or a septic system in a conforming location. It is true that the bulkheads themselves were built prior to 1977. They have been there for quite a long time and that possibly the DEC may require them to put them somewhere else on the lot, but we think on balance, given constraints of this lot, this is the way it should be designed and laid out. As you know the entire, the four corners of the lots consist of tuff grass. We've tried to line up the house with the adjacent house of Di Moy, obviously it's significantly smaller because the property's smaller. But those are the problems we've had. That's kind of thought process that went into this, and I think given 93 Board of Trustees 94 April 20, 2005 the constraints, I don't know what but I'm certainly open to any suggestions you may have. I don't know if there's a better way to lay it out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Just for the record, this is one of the worst building lots I've ever seen applied for. Although I have to compliment Mr. Anderson because you made it seem like this is the best, so I got to give it to you. MR. ANDERSON: I have what I have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh We're looking at a house 30 feet from the creek. We're looking at a driveway five feet from the creek. We're looking at a septic system 42 feet from the intertidal wetlands. For the record, this is really problematic. Just for clarification on the survey that was submitted it says Lot 118 now or formerly Saint John's Episcopal Church -- MR. ANDERSON: I don't understand that. That's the house of Di Moy, who is the husband. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we thought. And there is an issue there also for that house because they should have a 15 foot buffer on their bulkhead reconstruction, which -- MR. ANDERSON: Heather told me about that, that's separate, and if that's the way it's supposed to be, that's the way it's supposed to be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the way it's supposed to be. We need that immediately. MR. ANDERSON: Was there a planting scheme? Was it just don't mow it? I just heard about it yesterday. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's a non-turf buffer, just kind of let the turf -- MR. ANDERSON: I can certainly advise them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's got to be done. MR. ANDERSON: The idea don't mow within 15 feet; is that what you're saying? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No. It's non-turf. It should be gravel. Most people put gravel in along the bay instead of planting the grass seed in after bulkhead reconstruction. MR. ANDERSON: I had nothing to do with the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand that. It's just when we go on the site we think, hey we just gave them a permit. MR. ANDERSON: When was the bulkhead done? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 2003. Back to the little lot here. I'm going to invoke the new code here, and I don't see how you can make the septic system not completely impact the creek when really it's one wall, the wall itself -- MR. ANDERSON: The wall is not a frill of any sort. 94 Board of Trustees 95 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's less than 20 feet from the bulkhead. MR. ANDERSON: The idea of the, we're talking about this wall, what it is is a poured concrete, waterproof, weatherproof system to prevent the lateral leaching of the septic system. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I understand that point, but my point is that, and I'm referring to the plan and Mr. Foster maybe could help me out here, that the leachate goes into the cesspool part, then it goes down into the groundwater, then it moves out 20 feet into the creek water, that's like gravity. So that's my problem is that we're really looking at - I think it's going to be under the new code up to Mr. Moy to prove that somehow this is not going to happen. MR. ANDERSON. That's what's not going to happen? It's not going to leach? Of course it's going to leach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That it will leach into the creek. MR. ANDERSON: What I said is if you look at the Suffolk County topograph maps, they're going to show moving towards the bay. But the other point is wherever you put this septic system, I don't care if you put it under the house, you're not going to be 100 feet from any surface water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We understand that. MR. ANDERSON: All we have to do is swing an arc in any fashion whatsoever -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We understand that. MR. ANDERSON: -- there's no place - and we think it's laid out in the best place it should be laid out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When I saw this application I said there can't be because there's a house there already, not knowing. MR. ANDERSON: This is an individual building. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I didn't realize that because we had been out there numerous times. So unless anybody sees anything differently, it's going to be to up to Mr. Moy to somehow prove that the septic system isn't going to leach out. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I agree. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree with you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's 20 feet from the canal. How is it not going to go down to the groundwater. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'd like to see him provide a large engineering plan of this system. It doesn't mean I'll agree with it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The burden's on the applicant. MR. ANDERSON: At the end of the day we're looking at a house or no house I suspect. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. If he wants to go through the 95 Board of Trustees 96 April 20, 2005 motion, let's see if he can -- MR. ANDERSON: But we have a building lot. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Regardless. An environmentally sensitive and engineered plan for a septic system, I'd like to see that. MR. ANDERSON: We'll be happy to give you a technical report, and we can engineer it any way you would like to, but it's not likely to change my testimony. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's what I'd like, I would like to see an engineer stamped. TRUSTEE FOSTER: A hydrology report. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Showing groundwater flow there. MR. ANDERSON: But my point is this, if I were to take that septic system and put it on the other side of the building, how would that change? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It wouldn't. I think what we're saying is it seems to be Mr. Moy's problem, not the Town's problem. MR. ANDERSON: To what? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To locate the septic system where it's not going to impact surface waters. MR. ANDERSON: We'll be happy to give you a report. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And we're going to send Mr. Moy a letter about the contour buffer. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. If he's not in compliance, he's not in compliance. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to table. I'm sorry, I didn't read the CAC comments. MR. MCGREEVY: CAC goes along with your suggestion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh They recommend disapproval. MR. MCGREEVY: Disapprove and also I think there's something in the works about dredging that canal, which might have an affect on the hydraulic. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's possible, thank you. I make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 28. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of MICHAEL ZEVITZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, attached rear porch/deck, fencing, driveway, and sanitary system. Located: 1450 West Lane, Southold. SCTM#88-6-18.5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? 96 Board of Trustees 97 April 20, 2005 MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. We're trying to build a 1,260 foot square foot house with a 576 square foot deck, setback 90 feet from the wetlands. There would be a fence that runs along Little Peconic Bay Road. It's a four bedroom house. It is very similar, although somewhat further back from what was in this case was the wetlands boundaries than the neighboring lot that was owned by brother Joseph, which was Board approved. I was informed the other day that they will be seeking to extend the deck an additional four feet, perhaps the better way to do that is to handle that by amendment. They have discovered that the eight foot width on the deck is insufficient, they would like to make that 12, reduce the setback from 90 to 86 but still be further back than what the neighboring house or permitted by this Board and every other Board was granted. Other than that, it's a very straightforward application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments? MS. TETRAULT: Where is the fence? MR. ANDERSON: The fence runs along Little Peconic Bay Road. If you look at this, it would connect up to a bulkhead there, and the idea here is you'll see a 50 foot right of way, and the idea is enter the property from the west and not connect to Peconic Bay Road. We'll have to go to the Zoning Board because it's an additional front yard, because it's set back 11 feet, but the entire development access from the west. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Really. Because it shows you're set back a foot here. MR. ANDERSON: What are you talking about? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: From the right of way. MR. ANDERSON: Eleven feet from the property line. There's two right of ways. There's a 50 foot right of way to the north of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the one we accessed the property on. MR. ANDERSON: Right. Then there's a 10 foot right of way that runs along that eastern property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why is there a right of way adjacent to a road ending? MR. ANDERSON: I think to allow access from the lot behind it which is owned by Michael's sister. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why not use the road ending adjacent to it? MR. ANDERSON: The right of way isn't proposed. It's there as a matter of deed. 97 Board of Trustees 98 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's why I didn't understand, you've got a right of way and a road ending. They're both access. You know what I'm saying? MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why? MR. ANDERSON: I think it was done for the benefit of this lot (indicating). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is the fence proposed? MR. ANDERSON: Here. (Discussion.) TRUSTEE KRUPSKh If there's no other comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. MR. ANDERSON: Can we do it with the expectation that he wants to get an extra four feet on that porch? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's not a problem for me. Give us the drainage too, the dry wells. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I made the motion. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to approve the application for the house with an additional four feet on the porch and gutters and dry wells for drainage. Now, on your plan it shows 50 feet from the bulkhead; what does that mean? It's not labeled. Is that a 50 foot non-tuff buffer? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. MR. ANDERSON: I don't remember. But I can tell you this, whatever it is it should line up with what we did with the adjacent property, so let me get back to you on that. MS. TETRAULT: When we were there you said you wanted a buffer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we'll make a resolution it should match. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. If you go down there there's sort of like a beach grass. I don't know if it was 50 feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We measured that. It's got to be at least 25 feet, the buffer has to be at least 25 feet. I'll put it into the record. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's the motion. MR. MCGREEVY: Just a recommendation on the CAC part, that lot had quite a few trees on it and one of the recommendations we would like to make is preserve as many trees as possible outside of the footprint naturally, if that would be possible. MR. ANDERSON: Cer[ainly along the property line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Most of those trees are going to be non-jurisdictional for us too. MR. ANDERSON: We may have a problem with the Zoning Board 98 Board of Trustees 99 April 20, 2005 because we're going to ask them to treat Little Peconic Bay Road as a side yard. So I may come back to you because I may have to pull it back. Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? ALL AYES. 29. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of ENZO MORABITO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, attached rear deck, pervious driveway, sanitary system and private well. Located: 895 Glen Court, Cutchogue. SCTM#83-1-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of this application? MR. ANDERSON: This is kind of a curious one for me. You have a problem with the code when it concerns bluffs because if you read it carefully it's not properly set up, and it may be that we don't even need to be here, but we are here nevertheless. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'm recusing. MR. ANDERSON: I take it you've been out to the site and what you would have seen a variety of decks, there's a gazebo, a shed already on the property, and that is built right up to the edge of the bluff. All that would be removed and instead a house will be built, it would be relocated both landward of the coastal erosion hazard line and landward of the top of the bluff than what you have today. So it's a case where you really are retreating back. So we think it's a pretty good application from that standpoint. But we're well in excess of the setbacks from the Sound and also landward of the coastal erosion hazard line, although we have to do work within that line to at least remove what's there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Then there's an issue with replanting. MR. ANDERSON: I don't think we have an issue with it, but it should be revegetated, I would agree with you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh CAC recommend disapproval, but really you can see they're backing all that structure up. But our concern is once you take that gazebo and decking system out, you're going to have bare earth, so they need to show us a replanting plan, make sure it doesn't wash away. MR. MCGREEVY: We would recommend that. MR. ANDERSON: I would be happy. In fact, my suggestion is. you can close it pending the receipt of that plan, and we'll give you a native shrub type. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Non-turf type of system there. MR. ANDERSON: Because it will be bare earth. TRUSTEE KING: Can the house get closer to the read, just 99 Board of Trustees 100 April 20, 2005 back it up a little bit? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's possible. MR. ANDERSON: No. It's 50 feet from the road now. TRUSTEE KING: What's the zoning law? MR. ANDERSON: Fifty feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What are the other houses? MR. ANDERSON: About 50 feet. MS. TETRAULT: The zoning from the bluff is 100 feet. MR. ANDERSON: This is the thing, I thought, and I had met with Damon, and he agreed because it would be building behind a building that would be relieved from that, then we discovered it's a building behind a principal building. Now I'm told I have to go to the Zoning Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Otherwise people would put in a 10 by 10 shed without a permit and then build whatever they wanted behind it. MR. ANDERSON: If they got your approval, otherwise they would be in violation. I will give that plan, and I'm saying now, it could be that the Zoning Board says look, we'd like you to reduce it to 40 and slide the thing back, but I don't want to create more variances than I need, it's not good zoning practice. The idea is to minimize the zoning. TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to close the hearing. FOSTER: Second. KRUPSKI: All in favor? FOSTER: Aye. KING: Aye. DICKERSON: Aye. POLIWODA: Recused. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the application with installation of dry wells and gutters and replanting plan from contours 66 to the top of the bluff to the coastal erosion hazard line and non-turf vegetation. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Recused. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: First put in motion to go off the regular meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. VIII. RESOLUTIONS -- OTHER: 100 Board of Trustees 101 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE KRUPSKh On this date, April 20th, resolve that the Board of Trustees deny without prejudice the application of Gregory Mazzanobile to Amendment to Permit #5631 to eliminate the swimming pool and move the proposed sanitary system, leaching pools three feet further from the wetlands line. The Trustees hereby revoke Permit #5631 for the house, decks, swimming pool and septic system that was issued on September 25, 2002 because the new information the Board has showing that the sanitary system in the house will impact the Cranberry Bog and surrounding habitat. Also according to Section 97-27 A7 of the Town Code of the Town of Southold, the Board of Trustees are protecting a critically environmental area as defined in Section 97-11. The facts and the understanding of how the project will affect the area as a whole were very important in the decision to present this resolution. The Board has discussed other alternatives to the site. We have visited the site numerous times, alternatives as far as this application goes and as far as the previously approved permit goes, as far as location or size of the house and what not. So we have looked at alternatives; however, the Board felt for this project it was best to revoke the permit because of all the new information that came in after the Permit 5631 had been issued. This motion is made to deny without prejudice, which means that the applicant could resubmit for the same or a different proposal for this location at any time, and it would be reviewed from the beginning, and with all the information that had come in included in that review. So that is my resolution; is there a Second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor? Where's Artie? MR. JOHNSTON: Call for the vote again. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. I made the resolution to deny without prejudice the amendment and to revoke the Permit 5631, and Peggy seconded it; how do you vote? MR. JOHNSTON: Can we do a roll call vote? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Okay. Trustee Poliwoda? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Dickerson? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Trustee King? TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Trustee Foster? lOl Board of Trustees 102 April 20, 2005 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Aye. MR. JOHNSTON: Trustee Krupski? TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Aye. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a resolution to appoint Frank Thorp III as a member of the Shellfish Advisory Committee, for a term of one year, term to expire on December 31, 2005. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. TRUSTEE KRUPSKh All in favor?. ALL AYES. 102